8 I 1 


Author 




.di_ 


Imprint 




18--47372-1 «l»0 























































































































^-,.V . 




' wN' •,• 

:;V‘\r<U-- 


■ ’ >v- 


j-riJfV,: 


v« " ' 'f'* , ? ' ’ - 

---■ 












SCOPE AND EFFECT 

OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF MAY 29, 1899, 

CHANGING THE UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE RULES 


STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL CIVIL SERVICE REFORM LEAGUE- 
AND DISCUSSION WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 







m 

' ■' • '» '***X r 

/ ■< '•'i;; ,V 

■f. <' 


4K{p’1^ 


' '■'I «)F, :<,.' 






: 


*j: 



I 4 


m ‘*r igvxTii 



s’*. 


4 I 


.» ,s 


<'• '• 


I -I . I •! 


'.'v' 

■['••'S'- ■ 


1 / 

jV-v* 

,' ‘ • 

< i 1 

.)/■’' ■■ 

» 

\ 

7 s •, '. 

, 

\ 

'* ^ 

r' .' 

• 

1 1 

1 

t f : 

1 

k • ^ •, 


f > 1 

1 



7 . ‘ • ^ 

' . 

7 


»» 





4 /> 

''l,"<\ ■ 

7a/, ' 

'U/.X;,^VV 

\v ■(.;: 

mi ' ’ . 

f,V VI 

:.Xi . >:^;y -'- 


' ,' ‘"'fV '■ '' 

^^■^^;v .-Wi /A,^- 

'.»'••'• ‘F ^ « . n 





1 •», 




V 






>! ' I 





!• 






/; 


■ •■•.■U-''', ' A .. '■■ '■ X :-Mi«-•■■ ■ '.tfeS 


T! A *-^ 


I I 

• t' • ■»/ 

. ••.i. •■ 

- I .‘p. ■ 


> ( 


7/*‘ ^ ■ r 
iJ.^V •*‘^> . r 

N : • 


VvSO" 


^ J 


r . 

V - > 

\ -.1 .J.* 


^Bwp^ Vfev.’ .. r; '. • t 







v%. c 










The Executive Order of May 29, 1899, Chang¬ 
ing the United States Civil Service Rules. 



STATEMENT of the apparent scope and effect of the Presi- 


dent’s order of May 29, last, was published by the Civil 
Service Reform League on June 5. Further public discussion 
of the order followed, in consequence of certain statements 
concerning it made by the Secretary of the Treasury, and 
answered by the Secretary of the League. As these papers 
furnish a more or less comprehensive review of the subject, 
they are reproduced in full: 


The Statement of the League. 


JVew York, June j8gg. 


HE National Civil Service Reform League, after mature 



1 consideration, regards the order of President McKinley, of 
May 29, changing the Civil Service rules, as a backward step 
of the most pronounced character. 

The order follows a long succession of violations, of both 
the spirit and the literal terms of the law and rules, in vari¬ 
ous branches of the service, and must be considered in its re¬ 
lations to these. 

Its immediate effects, which have been understated, may 
be set forth as follows : 

(1) It withdraws from the classified service not merely 
three thousand or four thousand offices and positions, but, as 
nearly as can now be estimated, 10,109. It removes 3,693 
from the class of positions filled hitherto either through com¬ 
petitive examination or through an orderly practice of pro¬ 
motion, and it transfers 6,416 other positions in the War De¬ 
partment filled hitherto through a competitive registration 
system, under the control of the Civil Service Commission, to 
a system to be devised and placed in effect by the present 
Secretary of War. 

(2) It declares regular at least one thousand additional 
appointments made temporarily, without examination — in 
many cases in direct disregard of the law—in branches that 
are not affected by the exceptions, but that remain nominally 
competitive. 

(3) It permits the permanent appointment of persons em- 




4 


ployed, without examination, for emergency purposes during 
the course of war with Spain, thus furnishing a standing list of 
many thousands from which positions in the War Department 
may be filled, without tests of fitness, for a long time to come. 

(4) It alters the rule to the effect that in future any per¬ 
son appointed with or without competitive examination, or 
without any examination, may be placed by transfer in any 
classified position, without regard to the character or similar¬ 
ity of the employments interchanged, and after non-competi¬ 
tive examinat on only. 

(5) It permits the reinstatement, within the discretion of 
the respective department officer, of persons separated from 
the service at any previous time for any stated reason. 

The effect of these changes in the body of the rules will 
be of a more serious nature than that of the absolute excep¬ 
tions made. It will be practicable to fill competitive posi¬ 
tions of every description either through arbitrary reinstate¬ 
ment—or through original appointment to a lower grade, or 
to an excepted position without tests of any sort,* or even by 
transfer from the great emergency force of the War Depart¬ 
ment, to be followed in any such case by a mere “ pass” ex¬ 
amination. As general experience has proven, the “ pass ” 
examinations, in the course of time, degenerate almost invari¬ 
ably into farce. It will be practicable also to restore to the 
service at the incoming of each new administration those dis¬ 
missed for any cause during the period of any administration 
preceding. That such a practice will lead to wholesale politi¬ 
cal reprisals, and, coupled with the other provisions referred 
to, to the re-establishment on a large scale of the spoils 
system of rotation and favoritism, cannot be doubted. 

The Republican party at its last National Convention em¬ 
bodied in its platform the following declaration and pledge: 

“The Civil Service law was placed on the statute book by the Re¬ 
publican party, which has always sustained it, and we renew our re¬ 
peated declarations that it shall be thoroughly and honestly enforced 
and extended wherever practicable.” 


* Transfers cannot be made in this manner from an excepted posi¬ 
tion, or, under, the construction of the administration, from a temporary 
position. They can be made without previous competitive examination 
of any sort from classified positions subject to registration. 



5 


Mr. McKinley, in accepting the nomination of the party 
for the Presidency, endorsed and re-affirmed that pledge in 
these words: 

“ The pledge of the Republican National Convention that our civil 
service laws ‘ shall be sustained and thoroughly and honestly enforced 
wherever practicable,’ is in keeping with the position of the party for 
the past twenty-four years, and will be faithfully observed. Our oppo¬ 
nents decry these reforms. They appear willing to abandon all the ad¬ 
vantages gained after so many years’ agitation and effort. They en¬ 
courage a return to party favoritism, which both parties have often de¬ 
nounced, that experience has condemned, and that the people have re¬ 
peatedly disapproved. The Republican party opposes this reactionary 
and entirely unjustifiable policy. It will take no backward step upon 
this question. It will seek to improve, but never degrade the public 
service.” 

It must be said, though with profound regret, that the 
Civil Service law as it stood at the date of the Convention and 
at the time of Mr. McKinley’s election, has not been “thor¬ 
oughly and honestly enforced that conspicuous opportuni¬ 
ties that have been offered for its extension “ where practica¬ 
ble ” have been rejected; and that, finally, by the personal 
action of the President steps are taken that undo much of the 
progress made in the past, and introduce a spirit into the ser¬ 
vice the influence of which can hardly fail to produce general 
demoralization. 

To make plain the full significance of the situation a brief 
review of the past attitude of the administration toward Civil 
Service reform is required. 

Congress, by an act of July last, exempted from classifica¬ 
tion all clerks and others to be employed for the War emer¬ 
gency purposes. This action was based on misrepresenta¬ 
tions made on the floor of the House of Representatives re¬ 
specting the resources of the Civil Service Commission. 
When it was shown later that the Commission was prepared 
to offer as many competent clerks as might be required, at 
the shortest notice, the mistake was not corrected. The Sec¬ 
retary of War, though left free to choose the method of selec¬ 
tion, failed to call on the Commission. Appointments for 
field service were made largely through the engineers and 
were legitimately of the emergency order. Those made by 
the Secretary directly were not. Many hundreds of these 
were made, without examination, to the exclusion of candi- 


6 


dates regularly qualified and registered as such on the eligible 
lists of the Commission. 

At the succeeding session of Congress the Census bill was 
passed with a positive provision that the great force of clerks 
and statisticians to be appointed should be selected by the 
Director without competitive examination if he so chose and 
without the participation of the Civil Service Commission in 
any sense. This action had been preceded by a public discus¬ 
sion of the subject, and in the course of this it had been 
shown, in part by the statements of previous Directors, that 
the Census of 1890 had been rendered extravagantly costly 
and imperfect in consequence of the rejection of the competi¬ 
tive plan in organizing the Bureau at that time. At the 
height of this discussion the President, in sending his annual 
message to Congress, urged the passage of the bill, but failed 
to recommend the application of the competitive merit rules 
in the manner that had been proposed. Thus the second 
opportunity to extend the system where plainly practicable 
was put aside. Neither have other extensions that might be 
effected by independent executive action alone as yet been 
made. 

The failure of the administration to maintain the system as 
it existed has long been apparent. When President McKinley 
was inauguarated the revised Civil Service rules of President 
Cleveland had been in operation for nearly a year. To con¬ 
tinue to give these rules effect in the branches newly classified, 
the Civil Service Commission required, essentially, the co¬ 
operation of the appointing officers themselves. In many 
cases such cooperation was refused. In July of 1897, Presi¬ 
dent McKinley promulgated an additional rule, the effect of 
which was that, for the first time, the reasons for removals 
were required to be stated in writing and an opportunity 
afforded the person concerned to make an explanation—an 
order which was very generally, and especially by this League, 
hailed with warm satisfaction as an evidence of his support of 
Civil Service reform. 

But in many important branches this rule, as well as those 
of earlier date, governing appointments, was practically ignored. 
In the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Jus¬ 
tice, in certain Bureaus of the Interior Department, in the 
Government Printing Office, and in many of the larger Post 


7 


Offices and Customs Districts the rules in general were vio¬ 
lated with impunity. In both these and other branches, 
moreover, various methods of circumventing the law were 
practiced, and many temporary appointments were made 
without examinations to be followed, frequently, by the posi¬ 
tive failure of the Department officers to aid in securing 
permanent appointees. 

While in those branches of the service where the law has 
been longest in effect, its observance continued to be satis¬ 
factory, the transgressions occurring in these others have been 
so numerous that an unfortunate tone has been given to the 
whole. 

Respecting the Internal Revenue Service and the branches 
of the Department of Justice outside Washington, the claim 
was made that certain sections of the Revised Statutes war¬ 
ranted the setting aside oi the Civil Service law, although the 
latter was of subsequent enactment and practically all embrac¬ 
ing in its scope. The fallacy of this contention was clearly 
shown by the Civil Service Commission, in a published brief, 
and no written opinion in its support has at any time appeared. 
The violations of law, however, continued. In every part of 
the country subordinate officers, both in these two depart¬ 
ments and others, maintained a position of open rebellion 
against the authority of the President and treated the Execu¬ 
tive orders with contempt. When an appeal was made by the 
Civil Service Commission to the Treasury Department to end 
this condition by declining to allow the payment of salary to 
persons holding positions illegally, the newly appointed 
Comptroller, Mr. Tracewell, of North Carolina, gave a re¬ 
markable opinion to the effect that the Civil Service law had 
no force other than that given it by the Executive directly, 
and that whether persons were appointed in accordance with 
the law or not they must be paid their salaries unless the 
Executive, in each case, directed otherwise. 

Letters were addressed to President McKinley by this 
League, at various times, asking that the necessary steps be 
taken for the correction of the abuses developed and for the 
discipline of those officers directly responsible for them. Ade¬ 
quate corrective measures were not, however, taken, and, so 
far as the League has been able to discover, in no case has an 
individual violator of the law been punished. Not only were 


8 


these bad examples permitted to stand, but among the un¬ 
classified branches removals for avowedly political reasons 
were made sweepingly. A conspicuous example of this exists 
in the Consular service, where ninety per cent, of the salaried 
officers were changed. 

The order that is now issued condones most, if not all, of 
the infractions of the law itself by removing the positions in 
question wholly from the competitive class, or by approving 
the appointments outright. To accomplish this it removes 
permanently from the competitive lists many positions and 
classes of positions for which, experience has shown, com¬ 
petition is not only practicable but peculiarly desirable and 
important. 

During last Autumn, when the scope of the order was in 
some degree anticipated, many protests were made to the 
President by organizations of citizens and by individuals. 
The protest of this League, submitted under date of October 
28th, was accompanied by a statement of the arguments against 
specific changes, arguments that have not as yet been refuted. 

It was shown that in case of many of the positions in view 
department officers who had fairly tried the merit plan had 
testified publicly to the successful results, and that for others 
on the list the Civil Service Commission had held some of the 
most satisfactory of its examinations. It was shown that 
officers accepting minor fiduciary positions may be required 
to furnish a bond in addition to the passage of an examination 
for appointment or promotion, as is already the practice in 
many of the most important branches of the classified service. 
The speciousness of the claim that exceptions were necessary 
to permit unrestricted personal selections for positions of con¬ 
fidence, or trust, was shown by reference to the fact that where 
positions of this character had already been filled, in violation 
of the law, the appointees had been selected generally for 
political reasons only, not by the superior officer himself but 
by political agents, and in many cases with so little regard to 
fitness that the conduct of the public business had suffered in 
consequence. It was pointed out that the exemption of large 
classes of positions analagous in character to other classes 
remaining competitive would serve as a stimulus for fresh 
demands, and as a precedent for further concessions. 

Beyond these considerations it was urged that a retro- 


9 


grade movement in the development of our administrative 
system would be peculiarly unfortunate and inopportune at a 
time when it is proposed to extend that system to distant 
dependencies and to offer the advantages of stable and com¬ 
petent Civil Service to other peoples. 

These arguments, however, had little weight. The order 
is more comprehensive than had at any time been appre¬ 
hended. It not only condones grave offences and in so doing 
reduces materially the area of the competitive system, but it 
opens the way widely for practices that may make competit¬ 
ive examination in the future the exception rather than the rule. 

It has been said in defense of the action taken that inas¬ 
much as President Cleveland in May, 1896, extended the 
rules in such a manner that many of his appointees were 
“ protected,” and “ partisan advantage ” thereby gained, some 
correction of this sort was necessary; and, again, that the 
attempt to apply the rules in these cases had been attended 
by “ embarrassing friction and delay.” 

It should be said in fairness to Mr. Cleveland that not a 
third of the offices classified by him on the date in question 
were of the class subject to frequent change, and that no 
person holding any of those was protected from removal on 
any grounds within the discretion or caprice of his superior 
officer. Until tne order of President McKinley of July, 
1897, was signed, the power of removal was practically 
unrestricted. This has been shown repeatedly, in the public 
press and on the floor of Congress; it should hardly require 
repetition. 

It has been shown quite as clearly that the friction and 
delay to which reference has been made was due for the most 
part to outright opposition to the law on the part of officers 
whose duty it was to aid in its enforcement. If this were to 
be taken as a sufficient reason for exceptions it is to be feared 
that no class of positions whatever would be safe. 

The argument in this particular is met completely in fact 
by the following testimony of the Civil Service Commission, 
contained in its recent annual report: 

‘ ‘ The Commission regrets to report that there has not at all times 
been that cooperation and effort on the part of some officials in carry¬ 
ing out the law and rules which are required by the statute. . . . 

It has been found that in all cases as soon as the officers in charge 


lO 


give unqualified support to the system and unite with the Commis¬ 
sion in its suitable and reasonable application, little embarrassment 
or difficulty is experienced, and decided benefits to the service have 
been demonstrated almost from the beginning.” 

Although, for the first time since the passage of the Pendle¬ 
ton act, important ground has been lost, it is hoped that the 
recovery of that ground will not long be delayed. The at¬ 
tempt made to take the “starch” out of the law in New 
York, with which this backward step is to be classed, has 
already resulted in a reaction that has placed the reform in 
that State in a more advanced position than ever before. The 
League expects, confidently, that the enlightened public 
opinion of the country, which of late years has so vigorously 
pronounced itself in favor of the development and extension 
of the merit system, will not only prevent the restoration of 
the spoil system in any degree, but will rally for renewed 
efforts to carry the Civil Service Reform movement to its final 
consummation. 


The Comment of Secretary Gage. 


T he comment of Mr. Gage, as given to the correspondent 
of the New York Com 7 nercial Advertiser^ at Washington, 
and published generally on June 8, was as follows: 

“ The recent executive order, making changes in the civi- 
service rules, is being condemned by two classes of critics. 
One class is composed of those who maliciously misrepresent 
the changes which have been made, who make false interpreta¬ 
tions having basis only in their wish to find something in the 
action of the president to condemn, and who berate the ad¬ 
ministration for acts not done and never contemplated. On 
the other hand, there are some honest critics who have failed 
rightly to analyze the changes made, and who do not clearly 
comprehend all the practical questions of administration, and 
they have honestly believed that a backward step has been 
taken with the merit system. 

“ It is unfortunate for the cause of civil service reform that 
such an advocate of the extension of the merit system as the Na¬ 
tional Civil Service Reform League ought to be should array it¬ 
self squarely among this first class of critics, and by unpardona¬ 
ble misrepresentation, and by misstatements having no founda¬ 
tion, unless it be the wish of the writers to present a situation 
that could be criticized, set itself quite outside of the list of 
careful and honest critics. 

“ The Civil Service Reform League has issued an address 
to the public, containing an indictment of five brief counts, 
and a column of invective, and neither in the indictment nor 
in the general criticism is there intelligent comprehension of 
the question displayed. In this indictment they say, for in¬ 
stance, that the new order ‘ permits the permanent employ¬ 
ment of persons employed without examination for emergency 
purposes during the course of the war with Spain, thus fur¬ 
nishing a standing list of many thousands from which posi¬ 
tions may be filled without tests of fitness.’ 

“ This is a serious charge to bring against the president of 
the United States, and if it were true, it might offer ground 
for the belief that this executive order had been framed with 
a view to providing places for political friends of the adminis- 



12 


tration. Criticism of such a step as this fails, however, in 
view of the fact that the statement of the league is absolutely 
false. There is nothing in the order justifying such a state¬ 
ment. The president never contemplated making such a pro¬ 
vision for bringing into the classified service these temporary 
employees, and such is not the legal effect thereof. 

“ The thing which the president has done is to permit the 
heads of departments to make permanent such temporary ap¬ 
pointments in the classified service heretofore made with the 
sanction of the Civil Service Commission, and because the com- 
mision has been unable or has neglected to furnish an eligible 
. register where such temporary appointments have been re¬ 
newed from month to month for from two to three years with¬ 
out any effective movement on the part of the commission to 
supply the proper list of eligibles from which to fill the places. 
The recommendation to make permanent these temporary ap¬ 
pointees, in the discretion of the department heads, origin¬ 
ated with the treasury department, and I speak with absolute 
knowledge when I say that it originated solely in a desire for 
practical, common-sense administration, and not at the re¬ 
quest of any seeker for places. Had the Civil Service Com¬ 
mission supplied the eligibles, there would have been no occa¬ 
sion for such a rule, and its application is confined solely to 
these cases that have marked the commission’s neglect or in¬ 
ability. 

“ The statement which the Civil Service League makes, 
that these temporary appointments have been made without 
examination, is untrue. It has been the rule in the treasury 
department to make no temporary appointments without a 
careful test of the fitness of the candidate. 

“ This indictment by the Civil Service Reform League de¬ 
clares that the rules have been altered, so that ‘ in the fu¬ 
ture persons appointed with or without competitive examina¬ 
tion, or without any examination, may be placed by transfer 
in any classified position without regard to the character or 
similarity of the employments interchanged.’ This is another 
untruthful statement, made without any regard to the just¬ 
ness or the accuracy of the charges made. The one change 
which has been made in the rules governing transfers has 
been the dropping of part of the last sentence of that rule 
as it long stood—the clause ‘ or if in said position there is not 


13 


required, in the judgment of the commission, the perform¬ 
ance of the same class of work or the practice of the same 
mechanical trade performed or practiced in the position from 
which transfer is proposed.’ With that clause in force, the 
rule of transfers stood as an absolute bar, both to mobility 
in the service and the development of employees except along 
a single line. Entrance into the classified service was en¬ 
trance into a caste, and there could be no change, no matter 
what abilities the person might evolve, no matter what needs 
the service might develop, if ‘ in the judgment of the commis¬ 
sion,’ there was not required the performance of the same 
class of work or the practice of the same mechanical trade. 
What business institution would make a rule which said, once 
started in this service, you shall develop along only the one 
line in which you begin ? If you start to work with your hands 
you may never hope to work with your head. You have elected 
to put yourself in a caste, and no matter what our business 
may require or what your development may demonstrate 
neither the wishes of employee nor employer can change you 
from that caste. 

“ There are still all the safeguards of examination. The 
rule clearly says that transfers shall not be made ‘ without ex¬ 
amination provided by the commission to a position for origi¬ 
nal entrance to which, in the judgment of the commision, there 
is required by these rules an examination involving essential 
tests, different from or higher than those involved in the ex¬ 
amination required for original entrance to the position from 
which transfer is proposed.’ And yet, the critics of the order 
declare of this rule that ‘ the politicians have devised it to assist 
them in debauching the public service to a degree the limits 
of which can scarcely be imagined,’ and that ‘ it is an iniquity 
carefully covered up by the politicians and not appreciated by 
the president.’ As the rule originated in the treasury depart¬ 
ment, and was never asked for or suggested by any politician, 
it can at least be said of it that these criticisms levelled at the 
politicians are unmerited. Jf there is any safeguard in exam¬ 
inations conducted by the civil service commission, it is diffi¬ 
cult to see how the commission will under this rule lend itself 
to ‘ debauching the service to a degree the limits of which can 
scarcely be imagined.’ 

“ The statement, which the league makes—that persons 


14 


appointed without examination may be transferred under this 
rule to classified and competitive places—is an untrue inter¬ 
pretation. The intent of this rule is merely to give mobility 
within the classified places, and it cannot serve as a channel to 
bring into higher places persons whose qualifications have not 
been demonstrated by examination and experience. 

“ The final count in the league’s indictment is that the new 
rules permit the reinstatement, in the discretion of the respec¬ 
tive department officers, of persons separated from the service 
at any previous time for any stated reason. The change in 
this rule permits the reinstatement of the person discharged by 
reason of a reduction of force, specifically required by law, 
without regard to the one-year limit, which was formerly in 
force; and it provides that when the appointing officer certi¬ 
fies, over his signature, that on a rehearing charges of delin¬ 
quency or misconduct are proven unfounded, the person may 
be reinstated. While the old rule provided that persons re¬ 
moved for delinquency or misconduct could never be rein¬ 
stated, the civil service commission has repeatedly decided that, 
where the charges could be removed on investigation, they 
might be reinstated. There are indeed instances in the treas¬ 
ury where the commission has pressed upon the department 
persons who had been dismissed, the commission believed, im¬ 
properly, who had been separated more than a year, and were 
not, according to the existing rules, eligible. The commission 
properly felt, however, that in such cases, where the persons 
had been discharged through misapprehension or frankly with¬ 
out the assigning of any cause—a thing which had always been 
possible until President McKinley made every appointing 
officer come into the open, state the reasons for removals or 
reduction, and give opportunity for defense and reply—such 
persons should be reinstated without regard to the one-year 
limit. This rule, as it is changed, merely puts into effect what 
the commission has been doing, and has been urging upon 
the departments to cooperate with them in doing, with doubt¬ 
ful regard to the rules as they stood. Such is the character 
of this indictment of the Civil Service Reform League, and the 
epithets and denunciations which have been bestowed upon 
the administration because of things charged which have never 
been done or contemplated, have served as a cue to many 
other unfair and unfriendly critics. 


^5 


“ The main objection to the order raised by the honest 
critics has been that they regard as a backward step the plac¬ 
ing in the excepted list of a large number of places, estimated 
by some to be as great as nine or ten thousand. The main 
objection to these exceptions has been aimed at these places 
in the departments of the army, and rises from a misunder¬ 
standing of what has really been done. While I am not called 
upon to represent that department, the facts are so obvious 
that I refer to them. These three or four thousand places 
have not been opened to free appointment by the appointing 
officer, but they have been placed in exactly the condition that 
similar places in the navy department have been in for several 
years with the entire approbation of the civil service commis¬ 
sion, and with the cordial commendation of the most ardent 
civil service reformers. These places in the war department 
will hereafter be filled by a registration system, similar to the 
system in the navy, which is described by Secretary Long as 
follows: 

“ ‘The applicant, after registering with the board of labor employ¬ 
ment, must await his turn with others who are registered until his ser¬ 
vices are needed. There have been no exceptions to this rule. 
Applicants who are permitted to register in the order of their registra¬ 
tion are taken on in the order of their registration, preference being 
given to those who have served in the war of the rebellion, or the 
Spanish-American war, and to those who have had service in the navy 
yard for two years, and were discharged with their workmanship marked 
‘ excellent,’ and their conduct not less than ‘ good.’ ” 

This system of registration has been frequently recom¬ 
mended by the civil service commission. It has recently been 
adopted at their suggestion for a large class of places in the 
mint service, and is at the present time being urged upon this 
department by the commission for application to the custodian 
service. 

“ All these places in the war department that are under the 
new rules to be hereafter filled by this system of registration 
are expressly made subject to the rules of the classified service,, 
dismissing the employee who shall violate any of the provisions 
of the act or rules, who shall use his official authority or influ¬ 
ence for the purpose of interferring with an election, or con¬ 
trolling the result, or who shall contribute in any way to the 


i6 


dismissal or reduction of a person because of his political 
opinions or his affiliations. 

“ There has not been an exception made in my opinion, 
that was not demaned by the conditions of good administra¬ 
tion, and they will in the long run strengthen the merit system. 
Every one who has been familiar with the working of the clas¬ 
sified service understood that the inclusive order of President 
Cleveland would be found too sweeping. He found it so him¬ 
self, and almost immediately took out some officers. 

“ The conditions are much the same with shipping com¬ 
missioners. There are ten of these officers, who are quasi 
judicial in their character, and it is needless to point to the 
fact that an examination will not demonstrate the presence of 
the judicial temperament. 

The position of deputy collector of internal revenue, the 
only large class in the treasury department which has been 
excepted, was, according to the highest legal opinion the 
treasury department could get, illegally classified. The places 
bear a peculiar relation to the collector. The power of ap¬ 
pointment lies with him, the responsibility is directly to him, 
and the law gives him the liberty of choice. Under the 
rule as adopted, the department has made certain that in¬ 
competent persons shall not be appointed by requiring an 
examination equivalent to examinations held by the com¬ 
mission for similar places, and conducted by the commission 
in accordance with its regulations. That requirement as to 
examination applies not only to the deputy collectors but 
to the cashiers and deputies in the customs service, to the 
deputy naval officers, deputy surveyors and to the store keep¬ 
ers and guagers, and to the several places excepted in the 
mint and assay offices. These latter exceptions, it might be 
remarked, were recommended to the secretary of the treasury 
by a committee appointed by the civil service commision and 
the treasury department some months ago to reorganize the 
mint regulations. The commission approved the report of this 
committee, and asked the secretary of the treasury to concur 
in requesting the president to except the several places that 
have now been excepted in the mint service, and to substitute 
the system of registration in the entire class of mechanical 
positions. 

The exemption of all positions in Alaska in the customs 


17 


and internal revenue services merely confirms a necessary prac¬ 
tice which has prevailed ever since those positions were placed 
in the classified civil service. Appointment to the Alaskan ser¬ 
vice has always been made as if those places had never been 
included in the classified service. With the consent of the civil 
service commission, it has been customary for the treasury de¬ 
partment to nominate as for temporary work employees in the 
customs and internal revenue services in that district. For 
want of eligibles, these so-called temporary places have been 
continued from time to time with the approval of the civil ser¬ 
vice commission, until they have come to be fairly regarded as 
permanent. It is to be regretted that the extension of civil 
service classifications to Alaska failed because the commission 
did not establish an eligible list, and it is hoped that sometime 
conditions may undergo a favorable change. In recognition 
of theimpractibility of furnishing satisfactory employees for ser¬ 
vice ill that far away and rugged country, the civil service com¬ 
mission has held no examinations for these places since 1896, 
and it has not now, nor has it had for nearly three years, an 
eligible register. At the present time there are sixty-five cus¬ 
toms employees in Alaska, and two in the internal revenue 
service. Within a few weeks the customs force will be re¬ 
duced one-half, as the result of an examination of that service 
by the special agents. 

“ It should be noted that while President Cleveland ex¬ 
cepted a large number of places so that they should not be 
subject to any civil service rules, the present order makes all 
of these excepted places subject to sections i, 2 and 3 of rule 
II., that is to say, these sections regarding political activity 
and prohibiting the dismissal of persons for political reasons. 
Mr. Cleveland’s order placed them entirely out of the jurisdic- 
diction of any civil service rules. This order brings all under 
that section within the important provisions of rule II. 

“The claim that this order has been the letting down of the 
bars for political appointments is not borne out by the actual 
situation. It is now nearly two weeks since the order went into 
force. In the treasury department there has been only one 
appointment made under the new rules, that was the perman¬ 
ent appointment ot a stenographer who had been temporarily 
appointed because the commission had no eligible register, and 
the commission, still having no eligible register, and the tern- 


i8 


porary appointee proving satisfactory, the appointment was 
made permanent. Not a person has been discharged or one 
appointed under the new exceptions other than in this one 
case. If I were a politician and wished to obtain a place for a 
political favorite I would not, with the knowledge of these 
rules, which close contact with their operation gives know 
whereto turn to find the place. If some internal revenue col¬ 
lector could be induced to nominate my candidate for the 
position of deputy, and he could successfully pass an examin¬ 
ation given under the direction and marked by the civil service 
commission, a place might be obtained there. A place might 
be obtained in the customs service in Alaska, but it could just 
as easily have been obtained before, through the failure of the 
commission to ever supply an eligible register. There are a 
few private secretary positions, but even as a politician I would 
hardly presume to suggest to an officer who his confidential 
stenographer should be. There is a handful of places in the 
mint and assay service, but persons who fill them must be 
nominated by an operative officer, approved by the superinten¬ 
dent of the mint, and then stand a technical examination 
given under the direction of the commission, and it is hardly 
likely that my political favorite would be either a technical 
assayer, melter or coiner. If he had the proper judicial tem¬ 
perament he might be appointed a shipping commissioner, but 
there are only ten of those. 

“ There has been no letting down of the bars. The poli¬ 
ticians, who, it is alleged, wanted places for incompetent peo¬ 
ple, got little comfort from these new regulations. The men 
who have to administer the public service will find in them 
much relief, and the merit system will in the end be distinctly 
benefited.” 


19 


A Reply to Mr. Gage. 


A n open letter was addressed to Mr. Gage by the Secre¬ 
tary of the League, under date of July ii, as follows : 

To THE Honorable Lyman J. Gage, 

Secretary of the Treasury: 

Sir: —The Civil Service Reform League, on June 5, pub¬ 
lished a review of the recent Civil Service order of the Presi¬ 
dent, explaining its scope and effect, and declaring that “ a back¬ 
ward step of the most pronounced character ” had been taken. 
You have since, in an authorized interview, characterized cer¬ 
tain of the statements contained in that review as “ malicious 
misrepresentations,” as “ absolute falsehoods,” and, again, as 
“ false interpretations having basis only in the wish to find 
something in the action of the President to condemn.” 

The question of motive which you have seen fit to raise 
might safely be disregarded. The President knows, and no 
doubt you know, or can easily learn, how earnestly and re¬ 
peatedly the League and its affiliated organizations protested 
against the deplorable measure that has been adopted, or, to 
speak more correctly, against a measure of the same general 
character, but of far narrower scope, which he was understood 
to contemplate. If, with this knowledge, it is supposed that 
the recent action was inspired only by “ the wish to find some¬ 
thing to condemn ” in the President’s official conduct, discus¬ 
sion of the subject with you must be fruitless. On the other 
hand, I do not believe that the public is interested to know 
why our statements were made, but whether those statements 
are true or false, and what are the nature and the need of the 
present situation. 

It is of considerable importance, however, that the public 
should understand what has been your own attitude towards 
the Civil Service law and rules since you took office. You 
then announced that the law would be upheld by every means 
within your power, that it would be your chief aim “ to see 
that a business-like administration is given the country so far 
as the duties devolving upon the Secretary of the Treasury are 
concerned,” and that your appointments would be exclusively 



20 


“ with regard to merit, and not political obligations.” Many- 
worthy citizens, recalling this pledge, but ignorant as to man¬ 
ner in which it has been kept, doubtless still believe that your 
official course has been consistently in accord with it, and at¬ 
tach no little weight to your assurances regarding the harmless¬ 
ness of the new order. It is in every way desirable that such 
citizens should form their judgment in the premises with know¬ 
ledge of the facts, and in addressing you publicly, as I now 
do, I shall first point out what has been, under the present ad¬ 
ministration, the attitude of the Treasury Department: 

THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. 

You found the Internal Revenue Service wholly subject 
to the Civil Service rules. With the exception of the princi¬ 
pal deputyships—one in each of the sixty-three districts—all 
of the subordinate offices in that highly important branch 
were to be filled, when vacancies occurred, only through com¬ 
petitive examinations or by promotion. Experience had shown 
that the force engaged in the levying and collection of the in¬ 
ternal taxes should not only be as well trained and as per¬ 
manent as possible, but free from political dependence of any 
sort. The classification of the service had been ordered with 
this end in view. Nothing hindered the weeding-out of in¬ 
competents; that was to be encouraged. It was required 
merely that new appointments should be made after careful 
tests of character and fitness, and with the guarantee to the 
person accepting appointment that he would be retained so 
long as his duties were efficiently and faithfully performed. 
The furnishing of bonds, the usual guarantee against losses 
through dishonesty, was required as a matter of course in 
every case. By these means it was expected that the expert 
organization needed so urgently would be developed. When, 
as a result of the Spanish war, the internal taxes became the 
chief source of the government income, the need of this sys¬ 
tem became even more manifest. Following the incoming of 
the new administration, however, there were sweeping changes 
in the force of agents and clerks known commonly as “ dep¬ 
uty collectors,” in many districts. The new appointments 
were made generally in open disregard of the Civil Service 
law, and in most cases for political reasons. One collector, 


21 


in the Nashville district, admitted under oath that he had 
been governed by political considerations, and the same frank 
admission was publicly made by others. After a number of 
these violations were brought to the attention of the Treas¬ 
ury Department, especial instructions were sent to collectors 
bidding them to comply with the law; but without appar¬ 
ent effect. 

In July, 1897, the President altered the situation some¬ 
what by excepting 500 of these employees through an order, 
which was erroneously believed at the time to have extended 
the area of the classified service. On the same date the rule 
forbidding arbitrary removals was promulgated, and a second 
circular was issued by the Commissioner of Internal Rev¬ 
enue, pointing out the application of this to all positions re¬ 
maining classified ; this, too, had no effect. At various times 
it was suggested to you and to the President that offending 
collectors be removed; but in no case was such action taken. 
Finally, in September, 1897, when the practice of violation 
had become almost general, all effort to enforce the law within 
the department was abandoned. Although this was twenty 
months before the signing of the recent order excepting all 
deputies, the force was thereafter treated as though actually 
outside the classified service. The Civil Service Commission 
continued to hold investigations where complaints were made, 
and to submit its recommendations for the correction of the 
evils arising, but the status remained unchanged. In the 
course of one of these proceedings—that at Lancaster, Pa.— 
the results of the political method of filling these offices 
were strikingly shown by the testimony of a special agent 
of the Treasury, as follows: 

The extent of the revenue paid depends very largely upon the effi¬ 
ciency of the deputy collectors. The present system of treating places 
as party spoils results in failure to secure an adequate observance of the 
revenue laws. ... A new man, unfamiliar with the difficult and techni¬ 
cal work of a deputy, would hardly succeed in collecting twenty per 
cent, of the amount due the government, especially under the war rev¬ 
enue law. ... I called on one of the deputies to go with me to visit 
some of the wholesale liquor-dealers in York. The fellow actually did 
not know who the wholesale liquor-dealers in the city of York were. 
He did not know whether they had paid special tax as wholesale dealers, 
or whether they had paid as* retail dealers, and yet this city was his 
headquarters, and had been for four years. 


22 


This man, who had been appointed before these places 
had been classified, was clearly a fit subject for removal. 
The same agent also testified, however, that the Collector 
had admitted to him his intention to ‘‘ put his political friends 
into the offices of Deputy Collector, if the President would 
rescind or modify the existing rules.” This was early in the ad¬ 
ministration. The Collector, following the example of others, 
did nof wait for the modifying order. He proceeded to make 
the majority of his appointments, in his own way; though it 
is true that he has made still other changes since the order ap¬ 
peared. For the future it may be expected that the entire 
force will be liable to complete disorganization in this manner, 
with each change of party. 

You have said that this revival of the spoils system in the 
Internal Revenue Service and the rejection of the merit plan, 
have been excusable for the reason that, “ according to the 
highest legal opinion, the Treasury Department could get ”— 
which it seems could have been discovered only after the 
greater part of the mischief had been done—these officers 
should not have been included in the classification. If a 
lawyer has been found who supports the proposition that the 
law granting the power to appoint is not modified by the lat¬ 
ter enactment of the Civil Service law, fixing the method of 
appointment, the public would be interested to learn his name 
and his views. The Attorney-General, to whom application 
was first made, declined to give an opinion. The Civil Ser¬ 
vice Commission, on the other hand, produced the opinions 
of a number of leading lawyers, including a former President 
of the American Bar Association, and a former Solicitor- 
General, all to the effect that the application of the law was 
unquestionable. To advance the theory in any case that a 
statute that is in operation may be ignored merely because 
some interested person has challenged its validity is an un¬ 
usual, not to say a revolutionary proceeding. 

The disregard of the law in this branch of the Treasury 
Department during the past two years has served, in many 
parts of the country, to bring the entire Civil Service system 
into disrepute. 


23 


THE WAR EMERGENCY APPOINTMENTS. 

Since the opening of the war with Spain, the number of 
appointments in the Washington offices of the Treasury De¬ 
partment, through competition, under the Civil Service rules, 
has been insignificant. The number of appointments through 
other means—chiefly under the war acts—has been very large. 
When the urgency-deficiency bill was passed by Congress, in 
June, 1898, a clause was inserted permitting the employment 
of certain clerks in the War and Treasury Departments, for 
a period not to exceed one year, “ without compliance with 
the conditions of the Civil Service act.” 

In response to questions from various members, the chair¬ 
man of the appropnations committee, Mr. Cannon, stated 
that “ a few,” only of such clerks would be needed, and that 
he had been assured by officers of the Treasury Department that 
in the emergency existing it “ would not be practicable to get 
them under the Civil Service rules.”. (Cong. Record, June 
21, p. 6180). This was the beginning. When the number of 
emergency employees grew, and the same argument was used 
to secure further exemptions, I addressed a letter of inquiry 
on the subject to the Civil Service Commission. The Com¬ 
mission in its reply, dated October 22 last, declared that the 
representations of the Treasury officials, as repeated by Mr. 
Cannon, were utterly without foundation; that when the defi¬ 
ciency bill was passed, the registers of eligibles contained the 
names of 6,834 persons, whose fitness had been tested by exam¬ 
ination, and from among whom the clerical employees required 
might have been secured at the shortest notice, and that the 
facts were so reported to Congress at the time. It was pointed 
out that in 1890 three hundred clerks had been appointed in 
one day for the increased work of the Pension office, and 
that on many other occasions in the past emergency forces 
had been organized with the same expedition. These state¬ 
ments were widely published. Nevertheless, in every sub¬ 
sequent act passed by Congress authorizing increases of 
force, the same exempting clause was inserted, and both the 
War and Treasury Departments, failing to correct the erro¬ 
neous statements of the Treasury officials, continued to make 
their appointments without resort to the Civil Service Com¬ 
mission. I find, on examining these acts, that the “ few ” 


24 


clerks mentioned by Mr. Cannon have become many hundreds, 
and that the appropriations made within the year for addi¬ 
tional “ temporary ” service to the civil branch amount, ap¬ 
proximately, to $2,200,000. 

The act of February 24, 1899, extended the period of all 
appointments made under the previous acts for a second 
year. Finally, in the urgency-deficiency bill of March 3, 
1899, it was provided that “ hereafter”—without limit of time 
—all additional employees, “ rendered necessary because of 
the increased work of the war with Spain,” may be appointed 
“ without compliance with the conditions of the Civil Service 
act.” 

From March 4, 1897, to September 30,1898, there were but 
fourteen appointments from competitive lists in the Treasury 
Department, not including the Bureau of Engraving and Print¬ 
ing. I believe that there have since been eight or ten. Dur¬ 
ing the same period ninety-four appointments of clerks were 
made in the same offices under the war acts—exclusive of 
promotions and transfers—some after “ pass ” examinations. 
There have since been many more. The six hundred ap¬ 
pointed in the Washington offices of the War Department— 
whose unfitness as a class has been proved by the best of 
testimony—I need not mention here. I add no comment to 
the figures given. Whatever may have happened within the 
department, it is clear that so far as the operation of the 
Civil Service law is concerned, the old system has been to a 
very appreciable degree reestablished. I offer no speculation 
as to the character of individual appointees, or the influences 
that have led to their selection. One of the “ temporary ” 
clerks, whose salary has been increased since his original em¬ 
ployment, is, I am told, the son of the Second Assistant Sec¬ 
retary of the Treasury. Whether or not these employees are 
retained permanently, through successive acts of Congress, 
or through other means, it is the fact that an effective 
method of defeating the ends of the Civil Service law has 
been freely employed, and that the rights of many hundreds 
of men and women who entered the examinations without a 
doubt of the good faith of the government have been 
ignored. 


25 


THE USE OF TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS. 

Many positions in the Treasury Department have been 
filled without competitive examination, through “ temporary ” 
appointments, in the absence of eligible lists. That this 
practice had become an abuse prior to the issuing of the 
President’s recent order is a matter of common notoriety. 
While due in part to the inability of the Commission, for lack 
of funds, to hold certain special grades of examinations 
promptly, it seems attributable in larger part to the lack of 
cooperation of appointing officers, and to the frequent indis¬ 
position of such officers to end the term of service of their 
“ temporary” employees by facilitating the preparation of lists 
from which permanent selections must be made. 

I offer such an instance that illustrates incidentally, the 
spirit in which some of the higher offices have been treated. 

You displaced Mr. Worthington C. Ford from the office of 
Chief of the Bureau of Statistics, making no charges, and giv¬ 
ing no reason except that you wished the position for another 
man. For many years this important post served as a sort of 
adjunct to the campaign committee of whichever party hap¬ 
pened to be in power. Mr. Ford removed it wholly from pol¬ 
itics, and gave it a standing similar to that of corresponding 
departments in European governments. With the view of 
continuing this status, it had been placed, in 1896, in the 
classified service. You appointed “ temporarily,” to the va¬ 
cancy you had created, not a known commercial expert or 
student of political economy, but a former employee of a 
political press bureau. An examination was ordered by the 
Civil-Service Commission, and the papers for this were pre¬ 
pared. The holding of the examination was deferred, how¬ 
ever, and successive “ temporary ” appointments of the same 
person were allowed, until the President, by the recent order, 
placed the office in the excepted list. 

THE REMOVAL RULE AND OTHER MATTERS. 

I will refer to other instances of circumvention of the rules 
in the Treasury Department—as, for instance, the employ¬ 
ment of “ laborers ” to perform classified work—as I proceed. 
The inconsistent conduct of the department with reference to 
the rule regulating removals should, however, be mentioned 


20 


here. No doubt that rule has been fairly construed and en¬ 
forced in many cases in the Treasury Department. In others 
—quite apart from those in the Internal Revenue Service—it 
has not. Your own attitude respecting the latter class is in¬ 
stanced by the following: 

More than eighteen months ago the newly appointed Col¬ 
lector of Customs at Port Huron dismissed W. F. Muir and 
three other persons whom he found serving as deputies. Each 
of these had been told that if he did not resign he would be 
removed on the charge of having paid political assessments 
some five years before. Each refused to resign, and his 
removal followed. It happened that in 1896 the Civil-Service 
Commission had secured the conviction of certain officers at 
this port for collecting assessments, two years before, from the 
whole force of subordinates. Although those who had paid 
technically violated the law, their actual innocence was clearly 
proven, and after having given the testimony on which the real 
offenders were found guilty, each was promised full immunity 
by both the Commission, and by the District Attorney. When 
Muir, for instance, was removed on the preposterous reason 
assigned, not only was the President’s rule that no removal 
should be made except for “just cause” violated, but the good 
faith of the government was broken. On ascertaining that 
Muir had been a highly qualified officer, well fitted for reten¬ 
tion, the Commission urged repeatedly upon the Treasury 
Department the importance of correcting the wrong that had 
been done. But although the matter had your personal atten¬ 
tion you declined to interfere. 

THE WHOLESALE CONDONEMENT OF VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW. 

But the action, perhaps, the most damaging to the merit 
system, to be charged to the Treasury Department under your 
administration, is the decision that persons placed in positions 
in any branch in disregard of the Civil-Service rules shall not 
be deemed to have been appointed in violation of the law, and 
shall be paid their salaries as though introduced to the service 
in a wholly regular manner. 

In August, 1897, the Civil-Service Commission asked your 
aid in establishing the system in successful operation in the 
Civil Service of the states of New York, Massachusetts, and 


27 


Illinois, under which disbursing officers are permitted to pay 
salaries only to those shown by certificate to have been ap¬ 
pointed in legal manner. It was explained that such a check 
would put an end to many rapidly growing abuses. You did 
not agree to this plan, but you stated, in effect, that salaries 
should not be paid to those whose irregular appointments 
might affirmatively be shown. On October 17, 1898—this by 
way of instance—the Commission sent to the department the 
names of 271 persons holding positions in the Department of 
Justice, whose illegal appointments were thus shown, asking 
that these should not be recognized. The receipt of this list 
was acknowledged, but the salaries were paid. During this 
entire period, in fact, so far as can be learned, there was no 
case in which a payment of salary was refused. Finally, in 
April last, the Comptroller of the Treasury gave formal notice 
that thenceforth violation of the Civil Service rules would not 
be considered as a sufficient reason for refusing payments in 
any case. As a basis for this decision, the following remark¬ 
able doctrine was put forth : 

“ This violation or disregard, as before said, is not of the law, but 
of an executive regulation, and by the agent of the Executive, who is 
alone responsible to the Executive for such action. The head of an exe¬ 
cutive department is simply an instrument, the hand of the Executive. 
The power which makes the rule or regulation can waive its enforce¬ 
ment as certainly as the power which appoints an officer can remove such 
officer at its pleasure, unless prohibited by the law itself.” 

The “ opinion ” was given in the face of an unbroken line 
of Supreme Court decisions of directly opposite effect. It 
means that, according to the the theory of the writer, any ap¬ 
pointing officer may disregard the law as freely as he may wish, 
without interference by the Treasury Department and so long 
as he is not himself removed by the President. While it 
stands, it will tend inevitably to encourage those practices that 
have in the past proved so demoralizing, and that are now 
condoned, and to take away the most necessary guarantee of 
faithful enforcement. 

It does not appear that any steps have been taken to dis¬ 
place the officer who thus stands in the way of correct admin¬ 
istration, or to set aside his disastrous ruling. 


28 


THE STATEMENTS OF THE LEAGUE. 

To say the least, Sir, your own position in this controversy 
is seriously weakened by the fact, which I think I have made 
fairly plain, that many of those abuses most severely censured 
by the press and the public have arisen in the department over 
which you preside, or are due to the laxity or open hostility of 
your official subordinates. Noting this, and also that since the 
appearance of your interview time has been allowed for 
the voluntary correction of those among your assertions which, 
on reflection, you might recognize as inaccurate or unjust,and 
that opportunity has been taken also to make inquires of the 
Civil-Service Commission concerning matters that may de¬ 
pend for substantiation upon its authority, I shall show : 

(I.) That the statements of June 5 concerning the Presi¬ 
dent’s order were absolutely correct; (II.) that the failure of 
the administration as yet to redeem its pledges to enforce the 
law “ thoroughly and honestly,” and to extend its application 
“ wherever practicable,” is more than ever grave and mani¬ 
fest ; and (III.) that the future welfare and integrity of the 
merit system, as well as simple good faith, demand that the 
recent order, in the main, be revoked. 

The specifications of the League’s address to which you 
have referred I will repeat and discuss seriatim. The first of 
these was as follows: 

NUMBER AND CHARACTER OF POSITIONS EXCEPTED. 

“(i) The order withdraws from the classified service not merely three 
thousand or four thousand offices and positions, but, as nearly as can 
now be estimated, 10, log. It removes 3,693 from the class of positions 
filled hitherto either through competitive examination or through an 
orderly practice of promotion, and it transfers 6,416 other positions, in 
the War Department, filled hitherto through a competitive registration 
system under the control of the Civil Service Commission, to a system 
to be devised and placed in effect by the present Secretary of War.” 


The figures given are based on the tables of the Official 
Register of the United States, summarized in House Docu¬ 
ment 202, Fifty-fourth Congress—the latest definite authority. 
Of the total of 10,109 positions affected, those hitherto sub- 


29 

ject to competitive examination and now withdrawn are as 
follows: 


Treasury Department:—Deputy Collectors of Internal Revenue, 

900; Storekeepers and gaugers, 600; Shipping Commis¬ 
sioners, 27 ; additional deputies in Customs Service, 13 ; 
the Alaska Service, 50 ; Chief of the Bureau of Statistics, i; 
employees at Mints and Assay offices, 42 ; Miscellaneous, 

“. 1,644 


Interior Department:—Pension Examining Surgeons, 606; Land 
Office clerks, ig8; Clerks at Pension Agencies, 18; Finan¬ 
cial clerks at Indian Agencies, 57; Examiners of Indian 
timber lands, 23; special Inspectors and Agents, 68; Super¬ 
intendents of Logging and Irrigation, 18; Reservation Sur¬ 
veyors, 10; Miscellaneous, 35. 1,033 


Department of Justice:—Office Deputy Marshals, 204; assistant 
attorneys, 30; private secretaries to District Attorneys, 76; 
Examiners, 8. 318 


Post Office Department:—Financial clerks, 248; Physicians to 
act as clerks, 174; private secretaries, 24; Miscellaneous, 

I. . 

Dept, of Agriculture:—Agents and Experts, 40; State Statisti¬ 
cal Agents, 41. 


447 

81 


War Department:—Employees of Military Parks, 58; Army 

Paymasters’ clerks, (indefinite),. 58 


Navy Department:—Assistant Civilian Inspectors. 50 

All Departments:—Private Secretaries, 40; Officers appointed 

by the President without confirmation, 22. 62 


3,693 


I will not rehearse the arguments that have been made for 
the retention in the competitive classification of the most of 
the offices and positions in this list. I will merely emphasize 
the fact that, as in the case of the internal-revenue deputies, 
each is taken outright from the stable, non-political class, and 
placed in that class which is notoriously subject to frequent 
and arbitrary change. The competitive entrance test is but 
one feature of the merit system. The offer of opportunity for 
advancement and the protection against removal except for 
fair reasons, and alter an opportunity for an explanation, and. 











3 ° 


finally, the exclusion of politics where politics has no place, 
are features no less essential. 

The movement for civil-service reform in the past has 
been constantly forward. Through the action of successive 
Presidents the time has been brought gradually nearer when, 
in the language of the Senate committee that reported the 
civil-service bill, the merit system should include “ nearly all 
of the vast numbers of appointed officials,” whose duties are 
not political, but “ who carry into effect the orders of the 
Executive or heads of departments, whether at Washington or 
elsewhere.” When this advance not only is checked, but 
when thousands of positions are restored to the old basis, 
what could more fittingly be termed a “ backward step ” ? 

THE USE OF “PASS EXAMINATIONS.” 

In discussing these withdrawals you have attached im¬ 
portance to the fact that persons appointed to some among 
the positions affected are to be subjected to non-competitive 
or “ pass ” examinations. This requires a word. In the 
development of the merit system nothing has been shown 
more clearly than the fact that for its most important pur¬ 
poses the “ pass ” test is ineffectual and generally worthless. 
Under this system in the consular service, for instance, there 
were 112 candidates examined during the first year of the 
present administration, and of these iii passed successfully 
and were appointed. During the same period nearly 90 per 
cent, of the salaried consuls were removed for political 
reasons and new men put in their places. Again, in except¬ 
ing the internal-revenue deputies of higher grade, in July, 
1897, the President laid down the non-competitive rule. The 
results of this attempt, I am told, were even less satisfactory. 
It appears that the appointments were invariably made first 
and the examinations held afterward. Moreover, while in 
this case a large proportion of the persons appointed failed to 
pass. I am told that some at least of these have been re¬ 
tained in the employ of the Treasury Department, tlie failure 
notwithstanding. I have asked the permission of the Civil- 
Service Commission to examine the records that would prove 
or disprove this allegation. The Commission has so far 
treated the League and its representatives at all times with 


31 


perfect courtesy. Its records have been invariably opened to 
us, as I have been led to believe they have been to all re¬ 
sponsible parties. Many of the references in this letter are 
proof of that fact. In the present instance, however, it has 
declined to grant the permission asked, for the reason that 
this would be, in its judgment, “ against public policy, and 
not in the interests of the public service.” 

It is to be hoped that whatever investigation may be made 
under your authority will prove that the statement in question 
is not borne out by the facts. 

THE CHANGES IN THE WAR DEPARTMENT. 

The positions withdrawn from classification in the field 
and construction branches of the War Department include 
those of superintendents, overseers, sub-inspectors, and store¬ 
keepers, down to the various classes of mechanics. The 
numbers affected, compiled from the official authority above 
mentioned, are as follows : 


Quartermaster’s Department at Large. 622 

Medical Department at Large. 28 

Ordnance Department at Large.. 4,877 

Engineer Department at Large. 1,389 


6.416 

The language of the order relating to each of these classes^ 
is as follows: 

“ Appointments to these positions shall be made hereafter on 
registration tests of fitness prescribed in regulations to be issued by the 
Secretary of War and approved by the President.” 

You say that the effect of this is to place these positions, 
“in exactly the condition that similar places in the Navy De¬ 
partment have been in for several years.” The navy-yard 
rules are under the control of the Civil-Service Commission, 
and cannot be altered without its consent. They were so 
placed by President Cleveland, chiefly that they might “ be 
given stability independent of changes of administration.” It 
is most significant, moreover, that, as the League indicated, 
the commission had established the navy-yard plan in the 
War Department, under the immediate control of local 







32 


boards of engineers, nearly two years ago, and that this plan 
was being sn^ccessfully extended at the time the order was 
issued. The rules were embodied in circular No. 13 of the 
Engineers, issued August 16, 1897. Col. Alexander Mac- 
Kenzie, assistant chief, gave testimony as to their results be¬ 
fore the Senate civil-service committee in February, 1898, as 
follows: 

‘ ‘ There are a few officers of the Corps of Engineers whose unfavorable 
impressions of the Civil Service law, formed in advance of a full knowl¬ 
edge of its requirements, have not been changed by experience, but 
correspondence with officers leads me to believe that the large majority 
prefer a competitive merit system of securing employees, rather than 
one in which personal opinions or wishes are to control.” 

Notwithstanding this expert approval of the plan under 
development, the Secretary of War, in May, 1898, addressed 
a letter to the Civil-Service Commission, asking that each of 
these classes be excluded absolutely from the operation of the 
law. His request was not granted. When at the suggestion 
of Secretary Alger, the registration system, so far as it had al¬ 
ready been established, is set aside, and this force, instead of 
being “ placed in exactly the same condition ” as that in the 
navy-yards, is made subject to the control of Secretary Alger 
alone, do you believe that an enlightened public opinion will 
accept the change as intended to establish a satisfactory, non¬ 
political system ? Mere “registration tests of fitness,” with¬ 
out the essential elements that have made the navy yard plan 
work so well, must prove relatively worthless. If, following 
this public discussion of the subject, an equivalent to the 
navy-yard plan is indeed established, that will be a cause for 
congratulation. 

THE VALIDATION OF TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS. 

The second specification of the League was as follows: 

“ ( 2 .) It declares regular at least one thousand additional appoint¬ 
ments made temporarily, without examination—in many cases in direct 
disregard of the law—in branches that are not affected by the exceptions, 
but that remain nominally competitive.” 

The positions thus filled are, for the most part, of a special 
character, and in branches outside of Washington. You do 


33 


not dispute the statement of the number affected, so I shall 
not need to justify that. In each instance, the Civil-Service 
Commission had permitted an appointment without examina¬ 
tion pending the preparation of an eligible list. Without 
warrant for such unusual action in the law itself, the order 
declares that competition in each such case may be waived, 
and the appointees permanently retained. The number of 
“ temporary ” appointments during the first year of the 
present administration increased threefold over that of the 
year preceding. Some appointing officers construed the rules 
as authorizing them to make “ temporary ” appointments to 
fill any and every vacancy, regardless of the existence of 
lists. Others, as, for instance, the Appraiser at New York, 
refused to appoint from the lists, even where new ones were 
especially created. While the Commission had no difficulty 
in meeting the demand for eligibles in most branches, in these 
special cases it needed support to properly conduct its work. 
As I have pointed out, the co-operation of appointing officers 
was often lacking. Again, although in asking Congress for 
the small additional sum needed to cover its increased work, 
the Commission showed clearly that the operation of the rules 
in branches originally classified had saved three millions an¬ 
nually in the Washington offices alone, its request was denied 
—after an extended debate that you may recall. It does not 
appear that at that critical time the President or any head of 
a department urged upon Congress the importance of provid¬ 
ing for the emergencies in question. As it is, when a thou 
sand persons are admitted permanently to the classified 
service, after a failure to facilitate properly the holding of 
examinations, the precedent established must be viewed as 
most unfortunate. 

THE WAR-EMERGENCY APPOINTMENTS. 

The League said also concerning the effect of this feature 
of the President’s order: 

“(■ 3 ) It permits the permanent appointment of persons employed, 
without examination, for emergency purposes during the course of the war 
with Spain, thus furnishing a standing list of many thousands fron 
which positions in the War Department may be filled, without tests of 
fitness, for a long time to come.” 


34 


In the several provisions made by Congress for additional 
clerks and others for war purposes these employees were in¬ 
variably styled as “ temporary,” and as such were placed on 
the government rolls. That part of the President’s order here 
in question reads as follows : 

“ All persons serving under temporary appointments at the date of 
the approval of this section may be permanently appointed in the dis¬ 
cretion of the proper appointing officer.” 

You say that this language is not to be applied to the em¬ 
ployees in question. It is gratifying to learn that this is the 
construction the administration has decided to adopt, for no 
doubt you speak with authority. When, however, you declare 
the statement that it “ permits ” of a different construction to 
be “ absolutely false,” you are in a different position. The 
view taken by the League as to the effect of this rule was the 
view taken universally. On May 29, the Washington Star^ 
for instance, announced that: 

“ There is gp-eat joy on the part of the temporary employees of the 
War Department because of the fact that under the President’s Civil 
Service order issued to-day they may be given permanent appointment 
in the classified service at the discretion of the Secretary.” 

This impression was not corrected, I am told, until after 
the subject had been seriously debated by officers high in 
authority, and until after your interview had appeared. 

The original appointment of these emergency employees, 
and the manner of their retention, to the present time, I have 
already discussed. 

THE EFFECT OF THE TRANSFER RULE. 

The bearing upon future appointments of the rule govern¬ 
ing transfers, is covered by the fourth specification : 

‘( 4 ) It alters the rules to the effect that in future any person appointed 
with or without competitive examination, or without any examination, 
may be placed by transfer in any classified position, without regard to 
the character or similarity of the employments interchanged, and after 
non-competitive examination only.” 

You argue, in effect, that the opportunities provided for 
evasion of the law by this and similar changes are not so 


35 


serious as we have stated, for the reason that the administra¬ 
tion does not intend to use them. But you should appreciate 
that this argument cannot alter a literal or legal construction 
in any case. Neither can the professed belief of appointing 
officers that they will successfully resist the pressure for the 
employment of those opportunities, which, sooner or later, 
will be brought to bear, be accepted as reassuring. 

You say that “ the one change which has been made in the 
rule permitting transfers has been the dropping of part of the 
last sentence of that rule as it stood, the clause: 

“ Or, if in said position there is not required, in the judgment of the 
Commission, the performance of the same class of work or the practice 
of the same mechanical trade performed or practised in the position from 
which transfer is proposed.” 

Exactly so, but the clause that you quote was the very 
essence of the rule, the one thing that prevented its misap¬ 
plication for other than its legitimate purposes. It marked 
the difference between transfer and promotion, allowing the 
former method for the interchange of positions of similar 
character, but requiring competitive examination, so far as 
practicable, in every case—whether for promotion or original 
appointment—as the regular method for filling positions of 
higher grade. To enable employees to reach positions for 
which they were not in line for promotion, but for the duties 
of which they might show especial talent, to permit of “ mo¬ 
bility,” in short, the rule provided expressly that a person em¬ 
ployed in any grade should not for that reason be debarred 
from competitive examination for any other grade. The effect 
of the change is exactly as has been stated. A person ap¬ 
pointed after having passed one of the lower grades of com¬ 
petitive examination, or having gained a position subject to 
registration merely, without examination, can now be trans¬ 
ferred, after a “ pass ” examination only, to any competitive 
position in the classified service. The Civil-Service Com¬ 
mission is already permitting transfers between grades, which 
under the old rules were denied. The effect of this practice 
is likely to be that the higher grades, in time, will be placed, 
on a virtually non-competitive basis. 

It is notorious that the use of evasive means to get into the 
service becomes common as soon as such means are fairly 



36 


discovered. As an illustration : During the past year it has 
become a frequent practice to send persons to be appointed, 
without examination, as clerks at post-offices about to be pro¬ 
vided with the free delivery—and thus to be included in the 
classified service—and immediately following, to transfer these, 
again without examination, to similar posts in other offices or 
other departments for which they have actually been intended. 
A clerk appointed at the post-office at Napa, Cal., was within 
a few days transferred in this way to the San Francisco Mint; 
another appointed at Greenville, O., was brought at once to 
Washington, and at least four others were brought from cities 
in Virginia, Florida, and Colorado, to serve in the department 
of which you are the head. 

The employment of persons without examination as ^‘la¬ 
borers,” and their subsequent assignment to classified duties, 
constitute an abuse of long standing. The cases in the Ap¬ 
praiser’s office at New York are fair instances : and if you will 
cause inquiries to be made in the New York Immigration 
offices, you will find others of very similar nature. So serious 
has this evil grown under this administration, in fact, that the 
Civil-Service Commission gives nearly a page and a half of its 
recent annual report to its discussion. Referring to the 
rule of June, 1896, forbidding the practice, it says: 

“The Commission regrets to report, from information received 
from time to time in the shape of complaints and protests, that while 
perhaps this Executive order operated as a check for a time upon this 
practice, yet it has been resumed and the assignment of persons ap¬ 
pointed to unclassified positions to the regular performance of classified 
duty is again being made to a considerable extent .... It is noted 
that the number of unclassified labor positions increases out of all pro¬ 
portion to the need for mere unclassified labor while in some cases the 
number of persons actually engaged in such labor is reduced to the 
smallest proportions.” 

When such practices exist, in the face of inhibitory pro¬ 
visions of law, do you not think they will tend to increase, 
or even become the rule, when they are given nominally, or 
constructively, safiction of law ? 

THE EFFECT OF THE RE-INSTATEMENT RULE. 

The last specification concerns the removal of another im¬ 
portant safeguard against abuse: 


37 


(5)^ It permits the re-instatement, within the discretion of the 
respective department officers, of persons separated from the service a 
any previous time for any stated reason. 

The President’s new rule on this subject is as follows: 

“ Any person dismissed from the service upon charges of delin¬ 
quency or misconduct may be re-instated, subject to the other conditions 
of these rules, without regard to the one-year time limit of this rule, upon 
the certificate of the proper appointing officer that he has thoroughly 
investigated the case and that the charges upon which the dismissal was 
based were not true.” 

When it is considered that a review of any such case—from 
one to twenty years, perhaps, after the removal has been made, 
must necessarily be of an ex parte character, and that all 
the influence the candidate for re-instatement may be able to 
secure will be brought to bear upon the officer whose judg¬ 
ment is to decide the matter, the dangerous character of this 
rule is perfectly patent. Removals have frequently been 
made in the past for insufficient or trumped-up reasons, and 
against these the League has repeatedly protested, but the 
effort to right such wrongs in this manner will lead to 
the commission of other similar wrongs in the future, and, 
eventually, to political reprisals with each change of party. 
There will be constant temptation to make vacancies in order 
to permit re-instatements. The service will suffer from the 
return of relatively incompetent and unfit men, and the prob¬ 
lem of superanuation will be further complicated. That these 
will be the results can be shown by example; In one division 
of the Pension Bureau, following the last change of adminis¬ 
tration, nineteen special examiners were dropped to permit the 
reinstatement of veterans, to whom the time-limit has never 
applied. Of the men dismissed, eighteen were Democrats, 
and one a Republican; all I believe, had been appointed after 
examination, and the fitness of none had been questioned. 
That such occurences will multiply when the pressure for rein¬ 
statement under the new rule begins to be felt—and particu¬ 
larly at the time of a change of party control—cannot be 
doubted. 

Your statement that the Commission, by its own practice, 
indicated approval of this plan, is incorrect. 


38 


THE PRESENT NEED. 

In its address, the League stated that the reduction of the 
area of the competitive system, and these retrogressive changes 
in the rules that I have shown followed a long succession of 
infractions of the letter or spirit of the law, and must be con¬ 
sidered in their relation to these. A special committee has 
been engaged in the collection of the facts on which this 
statement is based. Except in so far as has been necessary 
for purposes of illustration, I have not given these facts in 
detail, for the report of that committee will shortly be 
published. 

You have said that it had become generally understood 
that the extensions made in 1896 were “ too sweeping,” and 
that President Cleveland, finding this to be the case himself, 
“ almost immediately took out some officers.” President 
Cleveland, six months after the date of his principal order, 
excepted seventy-eight attorneys, understood to be engaged 
in the preparation of cases for trial. The extensions were 
made nearly a year before the close of his term; during all of 
that period there was no other change. The pledge of the 
Republican party to maintain the law as it stood, and to ex¬ 
tend its application wherever practicable, was given after the 
revised rules had gone into effect. The direct relation of that 
pledge to the then existing situation was questioned at no 
time during the campaign of 1896. It is the evident judg¬ 
ment of the people—a judgment expressed with remarkable 
emphasis by leading journals, without regard to party—that it is 
as binding to-day as it was when it was made, and that in its 
present action the administration has committed a grave error. 

I am, yours, very respectfully, 

George McAneny, Secretary. 


A Rejoinder from Mr. Gage. 


O N July 16 a letter addressed by the Secretary of the 
Treasury to the League which was subsequently re¬ 
ceived and referred to the League’s Executive Committee, 
appeared in the press. This, which bore the date of July 14, 
was as follows: 

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

To THE National Civil Service Reform League, 

Gentlemen : My attention has been called to several 
columns in the public press of the 12th instant, purporting to 
be a letter addressed by the Secretary ot your body to me. 
The fact that I have received no such letter leads me to be¬ 
lieve it was intended rather for the press than myself. Assuming 
it to have been written by your authority, I deem it proper to 
make this reply to certain of the statements therein: 

I shall consider only a few of the allegations, and if these 
are shown to be not founded in truth, I shall leave the pub¬ 
lic to judge of the reliability of his statements as to the rest. 
He says: 

“ Following the incoming of the new administration, however, there 
were sweeping changes in the force of agents and clerks known com¬ 
monly as ‘ deputy collectors’ in many districts. The new appointments 
were made generally in open disregard for the civil service law, and in 
most cases for political reasons.” 

This Statement is misleading, and therefore untrue. Not 
a clerk, not an agent, in the service of the Internal Revenue 
Bureau has been removed for political reasons. Very few re¬ 
movals of any kind have, in fact, been made, and when made 
they have been in strict conformity with the President’s order 
of July 27, 1897, which requires, antecedent to removal, the 
filing of charges and the opportunity for defence. It may 
be doubted, however, if your Secretary intended to refer to 
clerks and agents in the language he used. He speaks of 
agents and clerks known commonly as deputy collectors.” 
There are no such clerks and agents. There are clerks, 
agents, and deputy collectors, but they are as distinctly sep- 



40 


arated as are the Treasurer of the United States, his book 
keepers, and his money counters. 

Does he know this, or does he mix these classes to¬ 
gether to confuse the mind ? However that may be, his re¬ 
marks are without application, unless it be to deputy collec¬ 
tors of internal revenue, and I do him the credit to believe 
that it is these he had in mind. 

How about this ? He says : 

“ The new appointments were made generally in open disregard of 
the Civil Service law.” 

He knew when writing this that there is and has long 
been a contention as to the legal right of collectors to ap¬ 
point their deputies. He was aware of section 3,148, revised 
statutes, that reads: 

“ Each collector shall be authorized to appoint by an instrument in 
writing under his hand, as many deputies as he may think proper, to be 
by him compensated for their services, and to revoke any such appoint¬ 
ment, giving such notice thereof as the Commissioner of Internal Rev¬ 
enue may prescribe. ” 

He was aware also, I have every reason to believe, that 
some of the collectors have asserted this authority. They 
have dismissed the deputies of their predecessors in office, 
and have appointed men of their own choice. Appeals have 
been taken to the courts, with the result indicated in the deci¬ 
sion of Judge Kirkpatrick of the United States Circuit Court, 
District of New Jersey, in the case of R. Harry Page et al. 
vs. Isaac Moffett. The Circuit Judge denied the motion to 
restrain the collector of internal revenue from removing dep¬ 
uty collectors, and held that deputy collectors of internal rev¬ 
enue are appointed under section 3,148, revised statutes, and 
that the power of removal rests with the appointing power, the 
collector, subject to such requirements as to notice as the 
Commissioner of Internal Revenue may prescribe, and cannot 
be reviewed by an appeal to the courts. 

He knew that it was to settle this mooted question, operat¬ 
ing, as it was, to embarrass the working of a bureau collecting 
annually more than 270 millions of dollars, that the President’s 
order of May 29, excepting them from competitive examinations, 
was issued. He had excellent opportunity for knowing that 


41 


the Civil Service Commission recommended this very exemp¬ 
tion, but yet failed to show the fact. In a letter dated June 
I, 1898, the Civil Service Commission addressed the President 
on the question of the revision of the civil service rules as fol¬ 
lows : 

“ The Commission has from time to time had its attention called 
to the many conflicts arising out of and touching the power of appoint¬ 
ments and removals of deputy collectors of internal revenue, pension ex¬ 
amining surgeons, deputy United States marshals, and other officials, 
which positions the Commission has determined to recommend should 
be excluded or exempted from the classified service and the rules of the 
Commission.” 


He alleges that for twenty months prior to the President’s 
order “the force (of deputies) was treated as though actually 
outside the classified service.” How can this be true if that 
be true which he himself states ? namely: 

“ After a number of these violations were brought to the attention 
of the Treasury Department special instructions were sent to collectors, 
bidding them comply with the law, but without apparent effect.” 

The records of the department refute him, however, in his 
general statement. 

With all the assertions of right and power made by the 
collectors to appoint their own deputies, a claim which has 
been put in practice in certain cases, it still remains true that 
the restraining influence of the Treasury Department has been 
such that out of a total of 963 such appointees 752 deputy 
collectors were appointed, and on May 29 last held their posi¬ 
tions, under the provisions of the Civil Service law and rules, 
which he (the Secretary of the League) charges the Treasury 
Department with “entirely” disregarding. The 211 not thus 
accounted for include those temporary appointments made with 
the consent of the Civil Service Commission, in cases where 
they were unable to furnish eligibles. The r-mainder may be 
said to be those appointments which are alleged to be made 
in contravention of the civil service law. But they were made 
in view of section 3,148, revised statutes, an authority invoked 
by collectors for their independent action in the premises, and, 
as he must well know, in some instances sustained by the 
courts, notably the case before cited. 


42 


In quite a different connection he says: 

“ Since the opening of the war with Spain, the number of appoint¬ 
ments in the Washington offices of the Treasury Department through 
competition, under thecivil service rules, has been insignificant." 

What is his purpose in making this statement, even if it 
be true ? Is it to insinuate that vacancies have been filled 
or new clerks appointed contrary to law ? 

Suppose that only fourteen clerks have been drawn from 
the Commission’s eligible lists; as the Secretary of the Civil 
Service Reform League, he must know that there are eligi- 
bles under the civil service law other than those whose names 
stand on the eligible lists of the Civil Service Commission. 
How many soldiers eligible for reinstatement have been re¬ 
stored as opportunity offered ? How many transfers, under 
the law, have been made from other departments to the bene¬ 
fit of the service, affording some promotion to deserving and 
experienced clerks just as eligible to appointment by trans¬ 
fer as any of the candidates whose names are on the waiting 
lists of the Commission ? It is not worth the time to look 
up the data, but this I assert, that every appointment to the 
classified service in the Treasury Department has been made 
either by taking “ eligibles ’’ from the Commission’s lists, by 
reinstating “ eligibles," or by the transfer of “ eligibles ’’—in 
one of these three ways and none other. 

He confuses this question with quite another question— 
i.e., the appointment of temporary clerks made necessary 
by the late war. These appointments have absolutely nothing 
to do with the question of whether or not this department 
has violated the civil service law, and I fail to understand his 
motive in reviewing them, except it be that he is put to ex¬ 
tremes to obscure former misrepresentations which were made 
with precipitancy. 

He knows that the law (for he quotes it) under which this 
class now hold appointments expressly provides that they 
shall be appointed: 

“ without compliance with the conditions prescribed by the act entitled 
‘An act to regulate and improve the civil service,’ approved January 
i 6 , 1883 .” 

which act is known as the civil-service law. Why, then, does 
he bring these appointments forward to support his injurious 


43 


•charges that I have wilfully disregarded the civil-service law ? 
I should never once have thought to call attention to the tem¬ 
porary employees on account of the war with Spain, now serv¬ 
ing in the Treasury Department, as examples of the sincere 
effort of the Treasury Department to comply with, not only 
the letter, but the spirit of the civil-service law, had it not 
been for this attempt of his to hold up this class of employees 
for the purpose of demonstrating this department’s unfriendly 
attitude towards the law. 

Let me say that when the act of March 31, 1898, was 
passed, providing for sixty-five additional clerks in this depart¬ 
ment, it contained no specific provisions as to how the appoint¬ 
ments should be made. From that date to July 7, 1898, every 
appointment to the class indicated was made by strict accord 
with the civil-service law. On July 7, 1898, however. 
Congress provided that these employees should be appointed 
without compliance with the conditions prescribed by the civil- 
service act. Even after that law was passed this department con¬ 
strued its provisions to mean that the appointing power could 
go where it wished for clerical material, barring, of course, the 
Commission’s list. Instead of resorting to the country at 
large for this entire temporary force, I conceived it to be my 
privilege, under the law, to transfer from the regular department 
service a number of experienced and valuable clerks. They 
had come into the Treasury Department in strict accord 
with the civil-service law, and when they were transferred to 
the temporary roll, they left vacancies which could only be 
filled in accordance with the civil-service law. 

Can he find anything in this action inimical to the spirit of 
he civil-service act ? Let me state for his better information 
that this construction of mine did not accord with that which 
Congress placed upon the act, for, by the legislative appropria¬ 
tion bill, approved February 24, 1899, the legislative authority 
decreed that places upon the temporary roll which had been 
filled by transfers from the regular department service should 
be vacated on or before the first day of July, this year. 

In this connection I cannot avoid an expresston of regret 
that he seems to strain far away from fact and truth in order 
to justify criticism. I believe in the principles which the Civil- 
Service Reform League is intended to foster and protect, and 
I am heartily in accord with every intelligent effort it makes 



44 


looking to the public good. I am entitled to some fair pre¬ 
sumptions in this regard by a reputation earned by zealous en¬ 
deavor in the fields of state and municipal reform, covering,, 
perhaps, more than all the years the Secretary of the League 
numbers; therefore it is a matter of keen regret to me that, 
instead of receiving sympathetic encouragement from a body 
whose purposes are acknowledged to be for the public good, 
only captious criticism is accorded. 

It appears to me his citation that a member of Congress 
said that such appointments would be “ few,” and that he had 
been assured by officers of the Treasury Department that in 
the emergency existing it “ would not be practicable to get 
them under the civil-service rules,” is too vague and uncertain 
a specification to merit any notice. How many officers so 
assured him ? Who were they, and, if he can name them, 
what has it to do with the case ? 

I might with propriety inquire as to the bearing of your 
Secretary’s statement that a son of an Assistant Secretary was 
appointed on the temporary roll, exempt as it was by law from 
the classified service. Has the fact—if it be a fact—anything 
to do with the observation or the violation of the civil-service 
law ? I respectfully submit that such evidances are a poor 
support to his main proposition, and justify suspicion as to the 
sincerity of his purpose. 

Another specification he presents—legitimate in kind if it 
will hold together—is as follows : 

“You displaced the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics, making no 
charges and giving no reason, except that you wished the position for 
another man,” etc. 

I am not called upon to explain to him nor to the gentle¬ 
men he represents, all the details of administrative action, and 
neither he nor they have any right to prejudge them. How¬ 
ever, I will waive this point and state the facts in this particu¬ 
lar case. 

It is true that the gentleman was asked for his resignation. 
He was at the same time assured, however, that he would not 
be removed, and that he was at liberty to decline the request if 
he so desired. 

The gentleman requires no sympathy from the League, 
nor from the public. With fine abilities in several directions. 


45 


and possessed of financial resources, he would not thank 
either your Secretary or me for dragging his name into this 
discussion. 

One more reference to the matter included in your Secre¬ 
tary’s letter, and I shall have done. He says : 

But the act perhaps the most damaging to the merit system to be 
charged to the department under your administration is the decision that 
persons placed in positions in any branch in disregard of the civil service 
rules shall not be deemed to have been appointed in violation of law, and 
shall be paid their salaries as though introduced to the service in a 
wholly regular manner.” 

The Comptroller of the Treasury, the man who made the 
decision of which you complain, while related to the Treasury 
Department, is the most independent person in it. President 
Grant once said: “ The only way to change the decision of 
the Comptroller of the Treasury is to change the Comptrol¬ 
ler.” From his decision the Secretary has no appeal. His de¬ 
cision the Secretary must obey. Your Secretary speaks also of 
his “decision” as an action for which the Treasury Depart¬ 
ment is responsible, and characterizes it as perhaps the most 
damaging to the merit system to be charged to the Treasury 
Department. If so, I am no more responsible for it than I 
would be if it were a decision from the Supreme Court. I have 
made analysis of the substantial part of his letter. I have en¬ 
deavored to make clear what he has obscured. Those who 
read it must judge. In the National Civil-Service Reform 
League those who administer the law ought to find an intelli¬ 
gent and conscientious adviser, a considerate and just friend. 
In the two communications submitted by your Secretary on 
behalf of that body, he furnishes evidence that it cannot be 
classed in either category. Yours respectfully, 

Lyman J. Gage. 



46 


Concerning Questions of Fact. 

T he final letter of the Secretary of the League, dated 
July 31, and dealing with those previous statements the 
correctness of which had been disputed, follows : 

To THE Honorable Lyman J. Gage, 

Secretary of the Treasury : 

Sir : In your letter to the Civil-Service Reform League, 
dated July 14, you have challenged the accuracy of certain of 
the statements contained in my open letter to you, of the nth. 
Your references are not to the facts presented in disproof of 
your charge that the League, in its comments on the Presi¬ 
dent’s civil-service order, had been guilty of false representa¬ 
tion. So far as appears, you have dealt with those subjects in¬ 
troduced to show that the attitude of the Treasury Depart¬ 
ment towards civil-service reform has not been consistent, and 
that your own view of the merits of the order could not, there¬ 
fore, be accepted without reserve. 

In assuming, as you seem to do, that the entire conduct 
of your department had been criticized, you are, I assure you, 
in error. In branches where the merit system has been long¬ 
est established, it has been faithfully upheld. You have, too, 
introduced a number of reforms in matters of department ad¬ 
ministration that have proven to be of very material value. On 
the other hand, in branches where the civil-service rules have 
been more recently applied—principally outside of Washing¬ 
ton—they have not been faithfully upheld, and other oppor¬ 
tunities that have been afforded to strengthen and extend the 
system have not been taken. We have doubted your own full 
knowledge of some of these things. But when you defended the 
recent order as a measure distinctly in the interest of civil-service 
reform, it was but natural that attention should be called to ap¬ 
parent inconsistencies, and that in meeting your charge against 
the League it should be shown that you spoke with periiaps 
unconscious prejudice. 

The necessity for any difference with you on this subject is 
as regrettable as it has been unexpected. It is of first conse¬ 
quence, however, that the public should have the clearest un- 



47 


derstanding of the situation, and while important details re¬ 
main in dispute, further discussion seems unavoidable. Your 
letter, being addressed to the League, has been properly re¬ 
ferred. Those questions of fact alone that you still raise I shall 
answer personally. 

THE INTERNAL-REVENUE SERVICE. 

I showed in my letter that the most imperative call for 
strict application of the civil-service rules under the present 
control of the Treasury Department, had been in connection 
with the administration of the Internal-Revenue Service. It 
was pointed out that since this branch of the civil establish¬ 
ment had so greatly expanded—$273,000,000, or more than 
half of the annual income of the government, now being col¬ 
lected through its agency—it had become more than ever im¬ 
portant that subordinate officers and employees should be se¬ 
lected for ascertained fitness only, and that the force should be 
as free as possible from the interference or mutations of party 
politics. I then stated that notwithstanding the fact that the 
rules did apply to the entire service when you took office, there 
have since been sweeping changes in “ the force of agents and 
clerks known commonly as ‘ deputy collectors,’” and that the 
new appointments were made generally in open disregard of 
the law, and in most cases for political reasons. On this sub¬ 
ject you make the following comments : 

(i.) “There are no such clerks and agents. His remarks are 
without application unless it be to deputy collectors of internal revenue, 
and I do him the credit to believe that it is these he had in mind,” 

This presents, at the outset, the consideration of the 
character and relative importance of this force. That I re¬ 
ferred to the “ deputy collectors ” was plain, for I so stated. 
The merely descriptive term to which you refer was used, how¬ 
ever, advisedly. These officers, who, since the opening of the 
war, have numbered approximately 1,300, may almost be said 
to constitute the working force otf the Internal-Revenue Ser¬ 
vice. The majority are engaged in canvassing the districts to 
which they are assigned, to discover objects of taxation, and 
to make reports, for the collectors guidance. Others, however, 
perform duties that are purely clerical, similar, in a sense, to 
those of the higher clerks in post-offices. Few of the minor 


48 


«officers of the government have a greater variety of functions 
to perform, or functions requiring more general educational and 
technical qualifications. It is in this highly important and di¬ 
versified class, I asserted, that the spoils system has been re¬ 
vived at a time when the need of the merit rule has been pe¬ 
culiarly urgent. 

Speaking with reference to the entire Revenue Service, you 
add: 

(2.) “Very few removals of any kind have in fact been made, and 
when made they have been in strict conformity with the President’s 
order of July 27, 1897, which requires, antecedent to removal, the filing 
of charges and the opportunity for defence.” 

There were 3,282 officers and employees in this branch on 
February i last. Up to that date—and since March i, 1897 
—there had been reported to the Civil-Service Commission 
1,552 separations, including removals and resignations, or 
about 50 per cent, of the whole. As the collectors in many 
districts had for a long time failed to make monthly reports of 
changes, as required by law, the actual proportion, no doubt, 
was greater. The meaning of these figures will be more plain 
when it is considered that among the force of letter-carriers— 
who have been long under the civil-service rules—the separ¬ 
ations through removal, resignation and death, in the years 
i 896-’97, were 2.5 per cent., and in the years i897-’98, 2.9 
per cent. 

Concerning removals made “ in conformity with the Presi¬ 
dents order of July, 1897,” I will show merely what has been 
the practice in the cases directly in point—those of the 
deputy collectors. I offer the following specimen extracts 
from the official reports of the Civil-Service Commission in 
these cases: 

“ Richmond, Va.—Collector Brady dropped nine deputy collectors, 
who immediately filed protests with the Commissioner against their 
separation by the act of the Collector without compliance with the civill 
service rules. Following this, the acting Commissioner of Interna- 
Revenue wrote to the Collector that his action was entirely satisfactory 
to the department, and that the line on which he proceeded was in con¬ 
formity with the verbal instructions given him on his visit to the depart¬ 
ment. The vacancies created were filled by appointment, without 
examination, of new deputies, in violation of the civil service rules, and 
some of these were shown to be members of political committees and 


49 


active political workers, engaging in political work even after their 
appointment, contrary to the order of the President, of July 14, 1886, 
limiting the partisan activity of government employees.” 

“Nashville, Tenn.—Immediately upon assuming charge of the 
office. Collector Nunn removed two deputy collectors and the three 
stamp deputies, whose positions he treated as exoepted ; four field 
deputies and one temporary field deputy, whose positions were treated 
as non-excepted. No charges were made against the persons removed 
from non-excepted places, as contemplated by the President’s order of 
July 27, 1897, and the vacancies C'-eated by these removals were filled 
regardless of the requirements of the civil-service rules in the matter 
of examination and certification.” 

“Dallas, Tex.—When Collector Hunt assumed charge of the 
office on August 10, 1897, he removed four deputy collectors whose 
positions are not exempted from examination. No charges were pre¬ 
ferred against these, as required by section 8 of rule 2. The Collector 
merely informed them that their services were no longer required.” 

“Baltimore, Md.—The report of changes in the service for the 
month of October, 1897, showed the removal of twelve deputy collectors 
on September 30. The removals were not confined to deputy collectors, 
who were required to give bonds to the Collector ... as one of the 
deposed employees, who was merely designated as deputy collector for 
convenience in administering oaths, performed only clerical duties, in the 
office of the Collector, handled no money, and gave no bond, was among 
those removed. This deposed employee filed a complaint early in 
October, charging the Collector with removing him for political reasons 
in violation of section 8 of rule 2. Other complaints followed, etc., etc. 

The records of these, and of other investigations ante¬ 
cedent to December, 1897, are given in the fourteenth report 
of the Civil-Service Commission (pages 292-328). I have no 
doubt that those of later origin, including the particularly flag¬ 
rant cases at Portland, Ore., and Lancaster, Pa., will be cov¬ 
ered by the forthcoming fifteenth report. 

Respecting my statement that new appointments were 
made generally in open disregard of the law, you say : 

(3.) “ He knew when writing this that there is and long has been a 
contention as to the legal right of collectors to appoint their deputies,’’ 

I not only knew this, but stated both the fact and the at¬ 
tendant circumstances. Certain collectors had indeed made 
the novel claim that the law giving them the right to appoint 
deputies was not modified by the later enactment fixing the 
method of appointment. This proposition had, however, been 


50 


promptly rejected by eminent lawyers whose opinions had 
been asked by the Civil-Service Commission, while the Attor¬ 
ney-General, to whom the department had made application, 
declined to give any opinion at all. Whatever other authority 
may have been invoked has not as yet been published. I sug¬ 
gested, moreover, that the attempt to establish the precedent 
in these cases, that astatute in operation may be ignored merely 
because some interested person has questioned its validity, was 
not only an unusual, but a somewhat revolutionary proceed¬ 
ing. 

But the most surprising explanation offered for these ap¬ 
pointments is this: 

(4.) “ But they were made in view of section 3148 R. S. (the law 
granting the right to appoint) an authority invoked by collectors for their 
independent action in the premises, and as he must well know, in some 
instances sustained by the courts.” 

There are no cases whatever in which the courts have sus¬ 
tained the contention to which you refer. The only cases aris¬ 
ing in the Internal-Revenue Service have been those involving 
the right to remove, a radically different thing, and the decis¬ 
ions in these are merely in keeping with previous decisions on 
the same subject relating to other branches. The civil-service 
act itself does not regulate the method of removal as it does 
that of appointment. It has been held uniformly, therefore, 
that the removal rule of July, 1897, cannot be enforced by the 
judicial authority, but that it can be by the Executive. 

Part of the text of one or two of the decisions in question 
should be given, for purposes of illustration, for the subject 
has an important reaching far beyond the confines of the In¬ 
ternal-Revenue Service. In the suit of Woods against the 
Postmaster-General, the first to be determined. Judge Cox, of 
the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, held as fol¬ 
lows: 

‘ ‘ The President may lay down rules for the internal policy of his 
administration, and may require his chief executive officers, dependent 
upon his pleasure for their tenure of office, to conform to them, or else 
sever their official relations with him, and in that sense the rules relied 
on by the complainant were within his political and executive authority.. 
But the enforcement of such rules is a matter between the President and 
his cabinet, and not a matter for the courts, or one in which the com¬ 
plainant has any legal interest.” 


This ruling was adopted in the subsequent suits. In that 
of Morgan vs. Nunn, one of the internal-revenue cases, 
Judge Lurton in Tennessee held as follows: 

“The civil-service rules, so far as they deal with the executive right 
of removal, a right which is but an incident of the power of appointment, 
are but expressions of the will of the President, and are regulations im¬ 
posed by him upon his own action, or that of heads of departments 
appointed by him. He can enforce them by requiring obedience to 
them on penalty of removal.” 

In brief, the power of the Executive to enforce the re¬ 
moval rule not only is upheld, but is emphasized by the 
courts. The establishing of this fact was the principal result 
of the litigation to which you have referred. 

On November 27, 1897, moreover,the claim of the right oi 
unrestricted appointment was in effect disallowed, when you 
issued a general circular directing all Collectors to comply with 
the civil-service rules until otherwise ordered.” During the 
eighteen months between that date and the date of the Presi¬ 
dent’s order (not twenty, as I have stated), Collectors who con¬ 
tinued to make arbitrary appointments were in open rebellion, 
not only against the law, but against the authority of the de¬ 
partment. It has been recalled that you were asked to end 
this condition by securing the removal of offending officers; 
but, so far as appears, no corrective action of this sort was 
taken. 

Speaking of the final withdrawal of the entire force of dep¬ 
uties from classification, you say : 

(5.) “ He had excellent opportunity for knowing that the Civil- 
Service Commission recommended this very exemption, but yet failed to 
show the fact.” 

That had not been questioned. The Commission did rec¬ 
ommend this action; but have you been unaware of the fact that 
it did so because of the opposition of the department to the 
application of the rules, and for the reason that absolute ex¬ 
emption was preferred to continued systematic disregard of the 
law ? Is it not known that the Commission actually told the 
President that this was the case, and that having exhausted its 
efforts with the department to secure compliance with the 
rules, the whole matter was thus submitted to him for settle¬ 
ment ? Shortly after the issuance of the recent order I ap- 


52 


peared before the full board, at a special session, for the pur¬ 
pose of making inquiries concerning this and other relevant 
matters. I was told that the facts were as I now state them. 
I was informed, moreover, that of the 10,000 positions affected 
by the order, only 2,300 had been covered by the Commis¬ 
sion’s recommendations, and that all but 1,033 these had 
been included for reasons similar to those governing its action 
in the case of the deputies. Of those changes in the body of 
the rules, specified in the recent statement of the League, it 
had not proposed one. As the matter of the relation of the 
Commission to the order has been introduced, it seems import¬ 
ant that the facts should be stated fully. 

Concluding your mention of the Internal-Revenue Service, 
you say: 

(6.) “ With all the assertions of right and power made by the col¬ 
lectors to appoint their own deputies, a claim which has been put in 
practice in certain cases, it still remains true that the restraining in¬ 
fluence of the Treasury Department has been such that out of a total of 
963 such appointees, 752 deputy collectors were appointed, and on May 
29 last held their positions, under the provisions of the civil-service law 
and rules.” 

These figures can hardly be intended to represent, in their 
proportion, the operation of the law under the present admin¬ 
istration. The records of the Civil-Service Commission, with 
which they are quite irreconcilable, show that during the per¬ 
iod from March, 1897, to June, 1898, there were not more than 
twenty-nine deputies appointed from competitive lists. Up to 
October, 1898, there were three more so appointed, and, so 
far as appears, there have been none since. From March, 
1897, to February, 1899, on the other hand, 232 appointments 
of deputies were reported as having been appointed under the 
contention that these offices were not subject to classification. 
How many were so appointed, in districts from which 
reports were lacking, cannot be stated. It may be added that 
during the same period, or at least up to October 17 last, 303 
other deputies were appointed, without examination, under 
the war-emergency acts. 

From this brief review the manner of the observance of 
the Civil Service law in the Internal Revenue Service will be 
shown, I think, with sufficient clearness. 


53 


THE WAR “ EMERGENCY ” APPOINTMENTS. 

I referred, in my letter, to the appointment of many hun¬ 
dreds of clerks and others, under a partial suspension of the 
Civil Service rules, during the progress of the war with Spain. 
The great increase in the business of the government, and the 
expansion of administrative functions, resulting from the war, 
had required, naturally, large additions to the subordinate 
force. For how long a period the services of the new employees 
would be necessary, could not be definitely told. Nothing, 
however, could have been more clear than the need at that 
time for as strict adherence as might prove practicable to those 
methods of selection that the Civil Service law prescribes. 

I showed that, notwithstanding the fact that the Civil Ser¬ 
vice Commission was prepared to furnish practically all of the 
eligibles needed, and to conduct special examinations to fill 
as many new demands as might arise, its machinery had been 
deliberately set aside by an act of Congress, and the whole of 
this great class of appointments placed on a patronage basis. 
I showed, also, that, while the appointments that have fol¬ 
lowed have been in both the War and Treasury Departments, 
the first exempting act was passed as the result of representa¬ 
tions made by Treasury officials to the effect that the Civil 
Service Commission was not prepared to meet the emergency. 

Of this you say: 

(7.) “ It appears to me his citation that a member of Congress 
said that such appointments would be-'few,’ and that he had been 
assured by officers of the Treasury Department that in the emergency 
existing it ‘ would not be practicable to get them under the Civil Service 
rules ’ is too vague and uncertain a specification to merit any notice. 
How many officers so assured him? Who were they, and, if he can 
name them, what has it to do with the case?” 

The “ Member ” referred to was the Chairman of the 
House Appropriations Committee, Mr. Cannon, who had re¬ 
ported the bill under debate, and whose official duty it had 
been to make full inquiries concerning those matters it was de¬ 
signed to cover. The following passage, which may be found 
in the Congressional Record for June 21, 1898 (page 6180), 
contains the further information for which you ask: 

“Mr. Underwood—I would like to ask the gentleman another 
question. 

“Mr. Cannon—Certainly. 


54 


“ Mr. Underwood—Did the department recommend to the com¬ 
mittee on appropriations that these clerks should be selected at large as 
temporary clerks, or under the Civil Service rules ? 

“Mr. Cannon—The Commissioner of Internal Revenue was very 
clear in his response ; and in addition to what he said, the Deputy 
Commissioner of Internal Revenue was equally clear—a man who has 
long held place under all administrations since he was first appointed. 
He was perfectly clear that it was not practicable, with the law going 
into effect at once, to get the force under the Civil Service rules.” 

I have already stated that the Commission had at this time 
6,000 names upon its clerical registers, and was prepared to 
furnish as many eligibles as might be needed, at the shortest 
notice. That this was the natural means of securing such em¬ 
ployees you show by your own statement that up to the date 
in question you had appointed emergency employees under 
the law, and in no other way—in itself a creditable record. 

In showing the number of persons appointed under this 
and subsequent exempting acts—persons whose employment 
has already been continued for a second year and now seems 
apt to continue indefinitely—I referred, for purposes of com¬ 
parison, to the number appointed in the Treasury Department 
after competitive examination under the Civil Service law. 

You ask: 

(8.) “ What is his purpose in making this statement, even if it be 
true? Is it to insinuate that vacancies have been filled or new clerks 
appointed contrary to law? Suppose that only 14 clerks have been 
drawn from the Commission’s eligible lists ; as the Secretary of the Civil 
Service Reform League, he must know there are eligibles under the Civil 
Service law other than those whose names stand on the eligible lists of 
the Civil Service Commission.” 

I hardly need repeat that these figures—confined, as they 
were, to original competitive appointments—were presented 
to give a comparative idea of the number of original ap¬ 
pointments, also, under the war acts. In mentioning the 
latter, immediately following, I give the total as 94, adding, 
exclusive of promotions and transfers^ Such places as may 
have been filled in either class by transfer or reinstatement, 
the methods you mention, were not in question. 

The places in the Treasury Department really filled, un¬ 
der the war acts, by promotion or transfer—44 in all—were 
mainly in the offices of the auditors. Including these, the full 
list of such appointments in the Treasury Department proper. 


55 


up to September 30, 1898, was 142; in the Internal Revenue 
Service, 375 (72 clerks and 303 deputies); and in the War 
Department, 525—a total of 1,042. Of the appointments in 
the War Department, a number were also made through 
changes within the service; but by far the greater number 
were made from the outside. I said to you that, while 1 of¬ 
fered no speculation as to the character of individual ap¬ 
pointees in the Treasury Department or to the influences that 
had led to their selection, it was clear that, so far as the opera¬ 
tion of the civil service law is concerned, the old system had 
to a very appreciable degree been re-established. To this I 
will add the assertion that, as a consequence of this policy, the 
efficiency of entire bureaus in the War Department was seri¬ 
ously impaired, at a time when efficiency had perhaps never 
been so urgently important. When I reaffirm that the exemp¬ 
tion from examination, granted as the result of the representa¬ 
tions of Treasury officials, was repeated in each following act, 
without the correction of the erroneous statements made, until, 
finally, under the act of March 3,1899, all additional employ¬ 
ees “rendered necessary because of the increased work of the 
war with Spain,” maybe appointed, for indefinite “with¬ 

out compliance with the conditions of the Civil Service act,” 
the pertinence of this illustration will be plainly apparent. 

THE USE OF “temporary” APPOINTMENTS. 

I cited the displacement of Mr. Worthington Ford from 
the competitive position of Chief of the Bureau of Statistics, 
and the appointment of his successor, without examination, 
as an illustration of the uses to which the rule permitting 
such appointments in the absence of eligible lists had been put. 
You agree that the resignation of Mr. Ford was requested; 
concerning the attendent circumstances he has himself made 
a public statement, to which I need not add. It appears, 
however, that the gentleman appointed in May, 1898, to fill 
this office “ temporarily,” for ninety days, was re-appointed 
without examination to the same place four times successively 
—on August 9 and November 9, 1898, and on February 17 
and March 18, 1899—and that, though an elaborate examina¬ 
tion was prepared by statistical experts, that examination was 
never held. When, under the President’s order, the office was 
excepted from examination, a final appointment was made. 


56 


THE CONDONEMENT OF VIOLATIONS. 

I referred to the failure of the Treasury Department to put 
an end to the growing practice of appointing persons to clas¬ 
sified positions in violation of the rules, by withholding pay¬ 
ments of salary to such persons, in accordance with the prac¬ 
tice now followed in the States of New York, Massachusetts, 
and Illinois, and wherever else civil service rules are in effect. 
I showed that the Civil Service Commission had proposed to 
you the adoption of an adequate system for this purpose, but 
that apparently no official recommendation on the subject had 
been made to the appropriate officers, and that, finally, the 
Comptroller of the Treasury had declared that salaries should 
be paid to all persons certified by department officers, whether 
their appointments had been regularly made or not. Concern¬ 
ing this you say: 

(9.) “ The Comptroller of the Treasury, while related to the Treas¬ 

ury Department, is the most independent person in it, President Grant 
once said, ‘ The only way to change the decision of the Comptroller of 
the Treasury is to change the Comptroller.’ From his decisions the Sec¬ 
retary has no appeal.” 

Whatever may be the limit of the power of initiative the 
Secretary possesses in this respect, I may remind you that the 
remedy of President Grant was that which I impliedly sug¬ 
gested. I said that it had not appeared that “ any steps had 
been taken to displace the officer who thus stands in the way 
of correct administration, or to set aside his disastrous ruling.” 

The civil-service act, in section 7, contains this provision r 

“After the expiration of six months ... no officer or clerk 
shall be appointed, and no person shall be employed to enter or be pro¬ 
moted in either of said classes now existing or that may be arranged 
hereunder, until he has passed an examination or is shown to be specially 
exempted from examination in conformity herewith.” 

I respectfully submit that an officer who holds that an ap¬ 
pointment made in contravention of these terms is a lawful 
appointment, and may be so recognized by disbursing officers 
of the government, is hardly fitted for continued service in a 
position of such unique responsibility. It is not overstating 
the case to say that the future effectiveness of the civil-service 
law depends, more than it does on any other one thing, on 
the reversal of this policy, and I repeat that the failure of the 


57 


Treasury Department, as such, to make any effective move 
toward that end must be accepted necessarily as an indication 
of and attitude by no means consistently favorable towards 
civil-service reform. 

EXCEPTIONS IN THE NAVY DEPARTMENT. 

While again addressing you publicly I shall take the op¬ 
portunity to modify certain statements contained in my former 
letter and to show that, in certain respects, the results of 
the changes in the rules made through the order of May 29 
are more serious than had been supposed. 

I wish first to point out an inadvertence through which 
fifty “ special mechanics and civilian assistant inspectors,” 
employed at navy-yards, were mentioned as among those 
transferred by the order from the competitive to the excepted 
class. In this case the effect of the change was merely to 
place the employees in question in the competitive class, under 
the navy-yard regulations. So far as examination is concerned 
there is virtually no change in their status. It may be added 
that the Secretary of the Navy asked for no exceptions, either 
in anticipation of this order or at the time of the Senate in¬ 
quiry into the subject a year ago. The one exception ordered 
in the Navy Department, that of private secretary to the 
Assistant Secretary, was not requested, and the present incum¬ 
bent, I understand, is not to be disturbed. 

REINSTATEMENTS AND REMOVALS. 

In justifying the statement of the League concerning the 
effect of the rule permitting the reinstatement of persons re¬ 
moved for “delinquency or misconduct,” without regard totl\e 
length of time elapsing since their separation from the service, 
I pointed out that the way had been opened for the practice 
of wholesale political reprisals at each change of administration 
involving the multiplication of removals in order to permit 
reinstatements. I allowed, however, for some limitation on 
this rule imposed, it was assumed, by the nature of its terms. 
The Treasury Department has virtually abolished all limit¬ 
ation by adopting the following construction, to be found in 
“ Treasury Decisions,” under date of June 29, No. 21313 : 


“ Referring to this clause of rule 9, it is evident that if persons dis¬ 
missed from the service on false charges are reinstatable without regard 
to the-one-year time limit, those persons who have been summarily dis¬ 
missed without the formality of charges preferred, without delinquency 
or misconduct, and for no just cause, are equally entitled to reinstate¬ 
ment at any time, and it is held that the rule applies to the latter class." 

The effect of the rule, as thus construed, will be to permit 
the reinstatement, without examination, of any person dismissed 
from the service at any past time, with or without the state¬ 
ment of cause, and for reasons altogether within the dis¬ 
cretion of the department officers. It applies to the whole 
service the policy against which the Civil-Service Commission 
and the League successfully contended during the second 
Cleveland administration, when it was proposed to permit the 
reinstatement of the railway mail clerks dismissed at the out¬ 
set of the administration of President Harrison. The evil 
effects of such a plan were pointed out with exceptional clear¬ 
ness in the statements made by Commissioner Roosevelt at 
that time. 

It has been said that the rule of July 27, 1897—requiring 
the statement of reasons for each removal from a competitive 
position and an opportunity for explanation—has been changed 
by the recent order in a manner lending to its effectiveness. 
It now appears that the reverse is true. The claim was made 
in certain departments, some time ago, that this rule did not 
relate to removals from particular positions, but only to those 
taking the employees wholly out of the service. Under this 
construction a superior officer might readily reduce the em¬ 
ployee to a salary that he could not afford to accept, and thus 
force him out by indirection. Though various means were 
discovered for evading this rule, and put in practice here and 
there, this seemed likely to prove the most serious. In the 
Philadelphia post-office alone fifty such reductions were made 
within a short period, affecting, among others, a superintendent 
who the year before had received a medal for the highest de¬ 
gree of efficiency in his work. It was suggested to the Presi¬ 
dent that the only practical way in which to meet the difficulty 
would be to apply to reductions the same reasonable procedure 
prescribed for removals—a construction already adopted 
by the Treasury Department. It was supposed by some that 
the language contained in the modified rule was intended to 


59 


accomplish this result. A month ago, however, a test case 
arose. A superintendent of a station in the New York post- 
office, who had secured his position by successive promotions, 
was reduced, on an hour’s notice, to a low-grade clerkship, in¬ 
volving a decrease in salary from $2,000 to $1,000. No reasons 
were furnished the employee concerned, and no opportunity 
for explanation was afforded. The facts were laid before the 
Post-Office Department, with the result that a formal decision 
was given—after discussion in the cabinet, according to the 
press despatches—that removals from positions of the higher 
order, through reductions of this extreme sort, are not to be 
subject to the President’s rule. The only effect of the change 
in this respect is, therefore, to repeal those parts of the Treasury 
rules referred to, and to recognize this means of evasion as a 
regular proceeding. Coupled with the provision for unrestricted 
reinstatements, in whatever vacancies may exist or be created, 
the effect of this ruling will readily be appreciated. 

I would not detract unnecessarily trom the value of any¬ 
thing the President has done. But I repeat that it is of public 
importance that the scope and effect of the recent order, as 
well as the significance of conditions existing prior to its ap- ' 
pearance, should be clearly understood. In furtherance of 
that end, I have devoted this letter to those questions of fact, 
merely, that, following the publication of your rejoinder, have 
seemed to require further exposition. I have not, of course, 
deemed it necessary to rehearse those various features of the 
order itself that have already been reviewed, and that must 
still form the subject of more or less public discussion. 

Very respectfully yours, 

George McAneny. 



























































































rSm 

M 

' i^. . 





' ■ *'"'' ''tv ^ 

. ' ' ■■ .;.v '^ r,',|>VS 

'. V 'a^'■ A' ■'■ ■■■■■( 

'■ ■ ■■' ; 

‘ •'* ‘! ,.-kj 


. ■ ; \ . ; >n I'l. .,,»-J‘ 

‘ ' ' ■ :v''/: '■ ■ .' .:!. ■; I' 

, AT ' 

' ■■:. : > • : ■.' , r ■''•^•'.^'•V i' 

'•■ I •. i . ' ■ *•'>’ '*/ ,’“i 

, A ' ' (' ”1 .‘ ' 'I* ■. ’, . > 'i ■' 

' v; ' / > ', .„>' '■ •:. 


. • r •; ■' ■ 4 ’.•■ ' :-• 

^' ' ' ■ *1 ' t' ”1 ’* 'I* '. ’i ■ ' ■' 

' ‘ • ' • •• 1» . >■’> •* . ' ‘'it 


' V' 1 , 


' ^ 


'' \ 


% t 

y 






4 


r' " 


:■■' , ' - ■ ■'■ ■ . V. ' f 

': -. • ' ■;' ■'■ ' ■■';',' ■',1 

, '>•, '■-I'll 

■. ’ .' r . , 'A , 


.. ' 


‘ I • ♦ .' ' ■' 

''. f ■ ': • V ' , •:' : ' ^ : 


" < ,' r V *■’' '• 'W' 

■ -i; . - 

- ' - . '' , t .1 » 


' ' .1 * '•• •• 


t •, 


♦: 

A 

' ‘ ! < ■' . a’ 

■ ' ^ f • s' ' I I ' ' p' 

\w--: 1.;;.' 

. > : . I ■ r .. 4 











